University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Reimagining the pathway to career success: navigating Identity and the white-collar workplace as first-generation immigrant professionals

(USC Thesis Other)

Reimagining the pathway to career success: navigating Identity and the white-collar workplace as first-generation immigrant professionals

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Reimagining the Pathway to Career Success: Navigating Identity and the White-Collar Workplace as First-Generation Immigrant Professionals Helen Park Truong Rossier School of Education University of Southern California A dissertation submitted to the faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education May 2025 © Copyright by Helen Park Truong 2025 All Rights Reserved The Committee for Helen Park Truong the approval of this Dissertation Briana Hinga Alison Muraszewski Ruth Chung, Committee Chair Rossier School of Education University of Southern California 2025 iv Abstract First-generation professionals (FGPs) in America face unique challenges and opportunities as they navigate career advancement, balancing intersecting identities, conflicting cultural expectations, and systemic barriers. Within this population, Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals (FGIPs) hold a distinct perspective shaped by their intersecting marginalized identities and the harmful Model Minority Myth, which restricts their career growth, especially at senior levels. As part of the fastest-growing workforce, understanding the factors that support or hinder their progress is vital to assessing economic mobility today and reimagining the future potential of the American workforce. This study explores how 17 Asian American FGIPs in the K–12 education sector navigate the complexities of career development. Using a qualitative approach, the thematic analysis of their narratives highlights the interplay between identity, culture, and career development strategies in organizational settings. Findings reveal that FGIPs draw strength from their intersecting identities and transition from reliance on hard work ethic and cultural deference towards strategic self-advocacy and networking. Mentorship and community support emerged as pivotal factors in overcoming barriers, fostering growth, and achieving career success. These insights illuminate the need for organizations to engage in ongoing reflection, embrace diverse definitions of leadership, and cultivate supportive environments to empower first-generation professionals. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of how identity and organizational practices shape career trajectories, offering pathways for fostering equity and inclusion in the workplace. Keywords: first-generation professionals, Asian American professionals, career advancement, Model Minority Myth, immigrant professionals, intersectionality, mentorship, workforce equity v Dedication To my husband, Calvin, for all of the big and small ways you have demonstrated your love and support. Thank you for four long years of giving up your evenings and weekends alongside me so that I could go back to school. To my beautiful children, Joanna, Matthew, and Benjamin, for your patience and understanding while I was in late night classes and doing homework. You are a huge part of my “why” and hope you grow up believing that every opportunity is available to you. To my parents, Sung Sook and Wonchul Park. You knew that school was important to me, took on extra grandparent duties, reminded me how proud I made you, and stocked my fridge with food. Thank you for supporting me in the best way you knew how. To my soulmates, Sarah and Peter, who have been my lifelong sounding board and a constant source of laughter, love, and encouragement. vi Acknowledgements Thank you to my chair, Dr. Ruth Chung, for your guidance, mentorship, and encouragement as my dissertation chair. Thank you to my committee members, Dr. Alison Muraszewski and Dr. Briana Hinga. Your support and thoughtful feedback made my work so much richer. Thank you to my dear friend, Dr. Nicky Fritz, who was the first person who told me about the program, wrote me a letter of recommendation, and helped me believe in myself enough to apply. I would not be here today without you. Thank you to my LDT/OCL circle, Pat, Kym, and Audrey. We made it through four whole years of evening classes, weekend working sessions, and hundreds of text exchanges trying to figure out how to make this doctorate happen. Your friendship has been the most transformative part of this experience. A special shout out to my grad school bestie, Pat, who has been a true partner in every one of the 20 courses we have taken together. Thank you to my incredible Cohort 24 friends and classmates. Your collaboration, shared wisdom, and camaraderie made this journey not only possible but truly enjoyable. I’m excited to see where your leadership journeys take each of you next, and I am confident that you will continue to make an incredible impact wherever you go. Fight on! Finally, thank you to the 17 participants who gave me the gift of their stories. It started out as a research proposal typed on a Word document, and you breathed life into this work. This dissertation is a love letter to all my fellow first-generation professionals who are striving to bring their dreams to life for their families, communities, and most importantly, themselves. vii Table of Contents Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x List of Figures................................................................................................................................ xi Chapter One: Overview of the Study.............................................................................................. 1 Context and Background of the Problem............................................................................ 1 Purpose of the Project and Research Questions.................................................................. 6 Importance of the Study...................................................................................................... 8 Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 9 Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 11 Organization of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 14 Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 15 First-Generation Professionals.......................................................................................... 15 Children of Immigrants: The New Second Generation .................................................... 36 Career Development and Advancement ........................................................................... 39 Career Advancement in Asian American First-Generation Immigrant Professionals..................................................................................................................... 42 Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 52 Summary........................................................................................................................... 61 Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 63 Research Questions........................................................................................................... 63 Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 64 viii Research Setting................................................................................................................ 65 The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 65 Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 68 Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................ 74 Ethics................................................................................................................................. 76 Summary........................................................................................................................... 77 Chapter Four: Findings................................................................................................................. 79 Overview of Study Participants........................................................................................ 81 Defining Career Advancement ......................................................................................... 82 Finding 1: Intersecting Identities as Sources of Career Inspiration and Strength............. 85 Finding 2: The Complex Relationship with the Hustle and Hard Work Ethic ................. 91 Finding 3: The Paradoxical Constraints Imposed by the Model Minority Myth.............. 98 Finding 4: Transforming Cultural Tensions into Opportunities for Self-Advocacy....... 110 Finding 5: The Power of One.......................................................................................... 122 Finding 6: The Power of a Village.................................................................................. 129 Summary......................................................................................................................... 135 Chapter Five: Recommendations................................................................................................ 137 Discussion of Findings.................................................................................................... 137 Implications for Organizations and Practitioners ........................................................... 145 Limitations and Delimitations......................................................................................... 150 Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 152 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 153 References................................................................................................................................... 156 Appendix A: Interview Protocol................................................................................................. 166 ix Appendix B: Screening Questionnaire Email............................................................................. 171 Appendix C: Screening Questionnaire........................................................................................ 173 Appendix D: Formal Participant Invitation Email...................................................................... 175 x List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Findings by Emerging Themes 80 Table 2: Participant Demographic Overview (N=17) 81 xi List of Figures Figure 1: FGIP Career Development Conceptual Framework 60 1 Chapter One: Overview of the Study No ideal captures the spirit and heart of the United States better than the American Dream (Wolak & Peterson, 2020). Though first embedded into our cultural fabric at the nation’s inception, this ideal remains relevant in today’s political discourse, with the American Dream being referenced over 500 times in the 114th Congress’s records and playing a unifying role across political divides in every presidential election since 1992 (Stephens et al., 2014; Wolak & Peterson, 2020). Almost folkloric in nature, the American Dream depicts a world in which a person can achieve the promises of a better life through resilience and hard work, regardless of their starting position (Stephens et al., 2014; Wolak & Peterson, 2020). Though there are slight variations across the literature in how the American Dream is defined, a common theme is the idea of economic and social mobility, where younger generations can improve upon their parents’ outcomes (Stephens et al., 2014; Wolak & Peterson, 2020). While few debate the allure of the American Dream or its importance to the nation’s ethos, its feasibility, accessibility, and even its relevance as a modern ideal are hotly contested (Wolak & Peterson, 2020). Some scholars argue that imperialism, colonialism, and racism are deeply embedded into the foundations of United States, suggesting that the American Dream was constructed for White settlers through the displacement of Indigenous peoples and the exploitation of enslaved individuals (Brayboy, 2006; Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013). Other scholars position the American Dream as in a current state of crisis, implying that it was once attainable and is an ideal worth restoring (Davidai & Wienk, 2021; Wolak & Peterson, 2020). Context and Background of the Problem Underneath these debates about the feasibility, accessibility, and current relevance of the American Dream are deeper questions about social and economic mobility (Davidai & Wienk, 2 2021; Wolak & Peterson, 2020). In today’s dynamic political landscape, a pressing question has emerged: Can the American Dream remain relevant in today’s America? (Davidai & Wienk, 2021)? An abundance of recent research shows that social mobility has been steadily declining across all income levels, but its effects are disproportionately experienced by working-class and middle-class Americans (Davidai & Wienk, 2021; Sigelman et al., 2022; Wolak & Peterson, 2020; World Economic Forum, 2020). According to the World Economic Forum (2020), access to high-quality education and work opportunities are central to building social and economic mobility. While current scholarship thoroughly explores the state of education, the state of work opportunities is relatively unexamined (Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018; Olson, 2014; Tate et al., 2015). First-Generation Professionals and Their Connection to Social Mobility Just as studying first-generation college (FGC) students is crucial to understanding systemic barriers in education, examining the lived experiences of first-generation professionals (FGPs) can enhance our understanding of how the workplace supports or hinders social mobility (Olson, 2014; Terry & Fobia, 2019). Referred to as “class migrants,” FGPs are defined by Burwell and Maldonado (2022) as professionals who transition from working-class backgrounds to white-collar careers as the firsts in their families. FGPs and FGC students share numerous overlapping and parallel characteristics (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015; Olson, 2014; Terry & Fobia, 2019). Similar to the challenges that FGC students encounter in university, FGPs face multiple invisible barriers to workplace belonging and career advancement in professional organizations (Terry & Fobia, 2019). While many FGC students come from working class and ethnic minority backgrounds, the university setting reflects a dominant culture steeped in White, middle-class values (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015; Terry & Fobia, 2019). The differences in 3 cultural settings extend into the workplace (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015; Terry & Fobia, 2019). Beyond the emotional impact, these cultural differences embody the unequal access to valuable resources and social capital that create barriers to career advancement and belonging that FGPs experience in the workplace (Terry & Fobia, 2019). First-Generation Professionals and Connection to Immigrant Communities While FGPs reflect a diverse range of sociopolitical identities, the immigrant communities within this population hold a unique connection to the American Dream (Davidai & Wienk, 2021; Garriot, 2020). First-generation immigrants, in particular, experience elevated levels of optimism about their ability to achieve economic mobility (Davidai & Wienk, 2021; Pew Center Research, 2013). As part of their immigration story, they see a change in their own upward mobility (i.e., relative to the conditions in their country of origin) as well as hopefulness about their children’s future outcomes (Davidai & Wienk, 2021; Pew Center Research, 2013). Consisting of predominantly Latinx and Asian Americans, the children of immigrants and their socioeconomic outcomes hold a particular interest for policymakers as the fastest growing working-age population (Pew Center Research, 2013). Although these children of immigrants have experienced upward mobility compared to their parents’ generation in key measures such as educational attainment, they report a sharp drop in optimism that their own children will exceed their current standard of living (Pew Center Research, 2013). As FGC students and children of immigrants make up increasing numbers of the college student population, the next generation to enter the workforce will likewise hold more first-generation professionals seeking career opportunities that help them access upward social mobility (Dominguez-Whitehead et al., 2021; Pew Center Research, 2013). Asian American First-Generation Immigrant Professionals 4 Asian Americans are often depicted in both academic and popular literature as “valedictorians, music prodigies, and winners of math and science contests” (Lee et al., 2008, p.70). First attributed to sociologist William Petersen in 1966, the term “model minority” credited the academic success of Asian American students to stereotypes of Asian cultural values, such as an emphasis on education, hard work, and discipline (Lee, 1994; Lee et al., 2008). In a series of publications between the 1960’s to the 1990’s, Asian Americans were publicly lauded for having achieved the American Dream, attributing their upward social and economic mobility to their individual attributes (Lee et al., 2008). The narrative implied that racism and poverty could be overcome through the “right” values (Lee, 1994; Lee et al., 2008). Thus, the Model Minority Myth was created as a counterexample to prove that the American Dream was still attainable through individual hard work and perseverance, discrediting the claims of civil rights activists fighting for institutional and systemic change (Lee et al., 2008). Despite what the pervasive narrative of the Model Minority Myth might suggest, data reveal a troubling income disparity within the Asian American community (Au, 2022; Budiman & Ruiz, 2021; Chui et al., 2022). Though overrepresented in educational achievement, Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals (FGIPs) report lower levels of workplace belonging and encounter obstacles to their career advancement, especially at the senior leadership levels (Chui et al., 2022; Tran et al., 2019). Amongst the FGIP population, Asian Americans present a curious paradox as being overrepresented in both low-wage and high-wage occupations (Chui et al., 2022). This paradox reveals a staggering economic mobility gap, where some Asian Americans are able to ascend the metaphorical career ladder while others are trapped at the bottom (Chui et al., 2022). A 2024 Pew Research Center study found that a third of Asian American adults living in poverty hold a bachelor’s degree (Tian & Ruiz, 2024). This 5 contradictory set of outcomes necessitates a deeper exploration of Asian American FGIPs’ career journeys. In addition to the unique aspects of their Asian American identity, this population holds a powerful shared experience with other FGC graduates, FGPs, and FGIPs as “cultural trailblazers” (Storlie et al., 2015, p. 304). Asian Americans FGIPs, like their fellow cultural trailblazers, must learn how to navigate their multiple marginalized identities alongside their invisible but salient “firsts” (Covarrubias et al, 2019; Storlie et al., 2015). Whether they are the first English speaker at home or the first person in their family to break into the professional world, Asian American FGIPs must traverse the metaphorical new world shaped by Whiteness and middle-class values and ultimately search for their own belonging (Almeida et al., 2019; Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2014; Garriot, 2020; Smith, 2023; Tate et al., 2015; Terry & Fobia, 2019; Yosso, 2005). The FGIP population is particularly vulnerable in the dynamic landscape of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, where the traditional rungs of career ladders are not only fractured but also obscured by uncertainty (Hirschi, 2018). By making the invisible stories of Asian American FGIPs visible, this study challenges conventional stereotypes, offers insights into the systemic barriers affecting marginalized communities, and pushes forward discourse about the institutional and systemic changes necessary to break down the barriers to the American Dream. The Pathway to Social and Economic Mobility The public’s optimism about their economic and social mobility holds vast individual and societal consequences (Davidai & Wienk, 2021; Wolak & Peterson, 2020). Scholarship supports that people who strongly believe in economic mobility achieve higher academic outcomes, demonstrate more goal-driven persistence, and show elevated levels of involvement in their 6 children’s education (Davidai & Wienk, 2021). Research also shows that people’s belief in the American Dream is shaped by their real-world experiences and individual optimism that better opportunities are attainable (Wolak & Peterson, 2020). Far from being just part of folklore, the people’s belief in the American Dream (i.e., hope in their social mobility) can consequentially shape the nation’s economic growth and progress (Wolak & Peterson, 2020). Though its origins and history are controversial, the American Dream and the ideals it represents hold significant weight in shaping our society, raising the question of how we can make it relevant in a changing world (Wolak & Peterson, 2020). Our nation’s ability to reimagine a more inclusive, attainable American Dream is intertwined with the career development journeys of FGIPs. According to the World Economic Forum (2020), increasing the levels of social mobility in a high-income country can support the revitalization of economic growth after periods of stagnation. If organizations actively support FGIPs attaining career development success, our society stands to benefit from reduced social and economic inequality and strengthened social cohesion, which are correlated with greater social mobility (World Economic Forum, 2020). Like the Great Waves of Immigration in the 1800’s that ignited significant advancements in the arts, social innovation, technology, and education, the pathway to economic mobility in the United States rests in our ability to invest in the unbounded potential of Latinx and Asian immigrants of the Modern Era (Pew Center Research, 2013; Sequeira et al., 2020). Purpose of the Project and Research Questions The purpose of this qualitative study was to uncover and understand how surrounding environmental conditions, influenced by multiple intersecting identities (i.e., social class, race, ethnicity), can shape the career advancement journey of individuals identifying as Asian 7 American first-generation immigrant professionals. While FGIPs reflect a diverse range of intersecting social identities (Dominguez-Whitehead et al., 2021), this study focused on firstgeneration professionals who were born to immigrant parents because they are often navigating multiple invisible but salient “firsts” that create additional barriers to career advancement, such as the first English speaker at home or the first American citizen in their family. As with many marginalized groups, Asian Americans face negative racial stereotypes that can hinder their career development (Huang, 2020; Tran et al., 2019). Wedged between the insidious appeal of the Model Minority Myth and the Perpetual Foreigner stereotype, Asian American workplace challenges are often dismissed as insignificant or cloaked in invisibility (Au, 2022). A deeper look at the disaggregated data exposes an uncomfortable truth—the Asian American community holds the greatest income disparity within any racial group in the United States (Chui et al., 2022). Some individuals experience swift upward economic mobility, while obscuring others who face significant barriers to advancement (Au, 2022; Budiman & Ruiz, 2021; Chui et al., 2022). Despite the future promise of high educational attainment, Asian Americans report lower levels of workplace inclusion and fairness, citing a lack of equitable access to the resources and opportunities needed for career advancement (Chui et al., 2022). Their claims are supported by evidence. Asian Americans experience a disproportionate plummet in representation and promotions at the senior leadership levels, a phenomenon exacerbated for Asian American women (Chui et al., 2022; Tran et al., 2019). Thus, this study sought to learn from the career journeys of Asian American FGIPs with the hopes of bridging the broken opportunity rungs and supporting more people in making their American Dream a reality. The following questions guided the study: 8 1. How do the intersecting identities of Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals shape their career development journeys? 2. When reflecting on their intersecting identities, what surrounding conditions do Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals attribute to supporting or hindering their career advancement? 3. What strategies and resources do Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals use to navigate the challenges to career advancement? Importance of the Study This study contributed to several fields of existing scholarship by deepening understanding of FGC students, workplace opportunities and outcomes, and contemporary career development. While a plethora of extant literature explores the unique challenges of the formal postsecondary education landscape for FGC students, the research supporting their experiences after they leave such institutions is spare (Olson, 2014; Terry & Fobia, 2019). Of the limited existing literature on FGPs, most studies focus on the career transition from college into the workforce and the self-efficacy factors that influence the decision-making process into a chosen career path (Harlow & Bowman, 2016). In addition, the current body of literature on FGPs acknowledges the importance of gender, race, and ethnicity in workplace outcomes, but the influence of socioeconomic class is under-researched (Burwell & Maldonado, 2022). Because socioeconomic status is an invisible identity marker that can evolve with changes in circumstance, the impact of navigating social class changes remains equally invisible. Lastly, few studies have taken an ecological approach to explore the ways in which multiple factors at the micro-, meso-, and macrosystem levels can shape career advancement. Given the dynamic shifts in contemporary careers through the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Hirschi, 2018), applying 9 an ecological lens is especially important to understand the interactive relationship between individual career development and the surrounding environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). By the very nature of their immigration stories, FGIPs embody the potential for upward mobility through industry and resilience (Davidai & Wienk, 2021; Garriot, 2020). Examining the workplace outcomes of Asian American FGIPs reveal both bright spots and important structural disconnects in our education system, labor market, and immigration policy (Au, 2022; Budiman & Ruiz, 2021; Chui et al., 2022; Tran et al., 2019). Contrary to the harmful narrative perpetuated by the Model Minority Myth, Asian American employees experience a steep decline in career advancement at senior levels and report lower levels of workplace belonging, especially across dimensions of fairness and acceptance (Chui et al., 2022; Huang, 2020; Tran et al., 2019). As part of the fastest growing workforce (Pew Research Center, 2013; Budiman & Ruiz, 2021), understanding what contributes to or hinders Asian American FGIP career advancement is essential for evaluating the accessibility and feasibility of the American Dream and reimagining its future potential. In essence, this study’s unique contribution was in making the invisible struggles of firstgeneration immigrant professionals visible. Organizations cannot create solutions for problems that they cannot see. Thus, this study’s findings added much-needed research to illuminate the workplace experiences of FGIPs and, ultimately, advance equitable opportunities for upward mobility among marginalized communities striving to overcome systemic barriers to career progression. Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology This study combined two theoretical frameworks to develop a holistic understanding of the factors that first-generation immigrant professionals attribute to supporting or hindering their 10 career advancement. Kimberlé Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality framework describes how various aspects of a person’s identity (i.e., race, class, gender, etc.) interact with each other to create complex individualized experiences of privilege and marginalization. In the context of this study, intersectionality is used as an analytical tool for critical examination of power dynamics in the workplace while also leveraging deep empathy and understanding of FGIPs’ lived experiences as a means for social transformation (Carbado et al., 2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory posits that human development is shaped by the interactive, reciprocal relationship between individuals and their surrounding environmental systems. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) framework provides a comprehensive, multidimensional approach to analyzing the surrounding conditions that shape FGIP career journeys, ranging from familiar personal relationships to broader social values. By integrating an intersectional and ecological approach in the conceptual framework, this study acknowledged the importance of both the individual and the external environment within the context of FGIP career development. FGIPs must engage in deep self-work and reflection based on their intersectional identities to navigate contemporary careers, which increasingly emphasize creating one’s own internal markers of success over accumulating promotions (Hirschi, 2018; Nagy et al., 2019). Simultaneously, the workplace environment has considerable influence on an individual’s overall well-being and future outcomes (Sigelman et al., 2022). Thus, organizations must also engage in a thorough examination of their current systems, policies, and practices to support FGIPs’ upward mobility. This study’s conceptual framework is further detailed in Chapter Two of this dissertation. This study took a qualitative research approach. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the purpose of qualitative research is to understand how people interpret the world 11 around them and construct meaning from these interpretations. The nature of the research questions focuses on how FGIPs have experienced their intersectional identities and how their meaning-making has guided their career advancement journeys, which yields rich descriptions to build theories and concepts inductively (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study leveraged individual semi-structured interviews with a purposefully selected group of Asian American FGIPs for the research methods. Qualitative researchers are intentional about collecting data from participants who will best help them understand the phenomenon (Creswell & Creswell, 2022). This population is central to the study because they have had to navigate significant cultural changes as first-generation professionals and through their intersectional identities as people of color and immigrants. Interviews are an effective way for researchers to direct the line of questioning that would be most helpful to explore the research problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2022). Given the nature of the research questions, observations in a natural field setting would prove challenging to understanding participants’ career advancement journeys throughout their lifetime. Instead, interviews conducted through Zoom video conferencing allowed for greater range of access to participants and thus more insight into the impacts of Bronfenbrenner’s chronosystem and the role of time in shaping their career development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Creswell & Creswell, 2022). Definition of Terms This study explored several key concepts that were integral to understanding the research problem, which are outlined below. Additional terms were introduced and defined throughout the dissertation as needed. 12 • First-generation college (FGC) student refers to someone whose parents have not earned their four-year university degree in the United States (Dominguez-Whitehead et al., 2021). • First-generation professional (FGP) is a professional who has transitioned from working-class backgrounds to white-collar careers as the firsts in their families (Burwell & Maldonado, 2022). • First-generation immigrant professional (FGIP) is a subset of first-generation professionals who also identify as immigrants or children of immigrants. • White-collar careers are often also referred to as “professional” careers. White-collar jobs are most commonly held by the upper half of the social class divide in the United States (Stephens et al., 2014). These roles typically require a college degree, involve managerial or intellectual forms of labor, and hold relatively higher levels of income and social status (Stephens et al., 2014). • Blue-collar careers are often used interchangeably with “working-class” careers. Bluecollar jobs are most commonly held by the lower half of the social class divide in the United States (Stephens et al., 2014). These jobs typically involve manual labor or service work (Stephens et al., 2014). While these roles may require a specialized skill set, they often do not have any educational requirements associated with the role (Stephens et al., 2014). • Second-generation immigrants are sometimes referred to more simply as “children of immigrants” (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019, p. 384). This population includes both the 1.5 generation (i.e., born in a foreign country and immigrated to the United States as children) and the second generation (i.e., born in the United States to immigrant parents). 13 Latinx Americans and Asian Americans make up the large majority of second-generation immigrants in the United States today (Pew Research Center, 2013). • Asian American is a socially constructed identity referring to the people descending from over 20 distinct nationalities and ethnicities in East Asian, Southeast Asian, and the Indian subcontinent (Budiman & Ruiz, 2021). • White dominant culture refers to the norms, values, and practices that center White Western European-descended people (Okun & Jones, 2001; Tatum, 2000; Yosso, 2005). This concept is also referred to as “White supremacy culture” or “dominant culture” and highlights how societal structures and cultural institutions prioritize and normalize White cultural values as the standard of excellence, which can marginalize other cultural perspectives and backgrounds (Okun & Jones, 2001; Tatum, 2000; Yosso, 2005). • Career development journey refers broadly to “the sequence of job positions over a person’s lifespan” (Jeong & Leblebici, 2019, p. 299). • Career advancement has traditionally been defined by upward movement through a hierarchy, but research now suggests that success in navigating today’s workplaces requires a proactive management of one’s own career to find sustainability, job satisfaction, and personal meaning (Nagy et al., 2019). • Career barriers are broadly defined as the perceived internal and external obstacles that people experience while developing their careers (Toyokawa & DeWald, 2022). • Intersectionality is a term coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw that refers to how individuals can hold multiple, compounding marginalized identities that create unique experiences of privilege and marginalization within a social and political system built around singular identities (Crenshaw, 1989). 14 • Surrounding conditions in the context of this study refers broadly to the ecological systems in Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems model that interact with human development at various levels. This can include a person, group of people, a network, cultural norms, an organizational policy or practice, a resource, or a development opportunity. Surrounding conditions are the influences external to the person at the center of the conceptual model that shape their career development. Organization of the Dissertation This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One introduces the problem of declining social and economic mobility in the United States and how examining the lived experiences of first-generation immigrant professionals is crucial to understanding systemic barriers in career advancement opportunities. Chapter One also presents the purpose of the study, an overview of the theoretical framework and methodology, and the definitions of key terms and concepts used throughout the study. Chapter Two provides an extensive overview of relevant literature on first-generation professionals, the new second-generation Americans, contemporary career development, and Asian Americans within the context of K–12 education. Chapter Two also reviews Kimberlé Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality framework and Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems model as the foundations for the study’s conceptual framework. Chapter Three outlines the study’s methodology, including the researcher’s reflection on positionality, qualitative research design, participant sampling, and data collection methods. Chapter Four presents an analysis of key findings from the qualitative data in alignment with the research questions guiding the study. Finally, Chapter Five integrates existing literature with the key findings from the qualitative study and synthesizes recommendations for organizations seeking to support first-generation professionals in their career development journey. 15 Chapter Two: Literature Review This chapter presents a comprehensive review of the extant literature on first-generation immigrant professionals and advancement barriers in contemporary career development. This section first provides an overview of first-generation professionals, including a definition and the connection to first-generation college students. Then, it reviews the key surrounding conditions, aligned to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems framework, which shape first-generation professionals, such as the role of key relationships (microsystem), networks and social capital (mesosystem), and overarching cultural values and beliefs (macrosystem). Next, this chapter explores the children of immigrants, also known in the literature as the new second generation, and their intersection with first-generation professionals. Then, this chapter narrows focus with an examination of Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals and the unique career challenges and barriers they face in the K–12 education sector. Finally, the literature review concludes with an overview of intersectionality, the ecological systems framework, and key research questions used to guide this study. First-Generation Professionals Definition of First-Generation Professionals First-generation professionals (FGP) are defined as professionals who transition from a working-class family background into white-collar careers, effectively making a social class transition (Burwell & Maldonado, 2022; Terry & Fobia, 2019). Other scholars define FGPs by connecting them to first-generation college (FGC) graduates who are then the first in their immediate family to hold a professional position (Dominiquez-Whitehead et al., 2021). While FGC students have been extensively studied within the context of the academic and postsecondary settings, little is known about their career pathways or employment outcomes 16 after graduation (Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018; Olson, 2014; Tate et al., 2015). As the United States postsecondary landscape sees an increase in FGC students and students from an immigrant background, the next generation to enter the workforce will similarly hold more first-generation professionals (Dominguez-Whitehead et al., 2021; Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018). The current state of FGC graduates’ career outcomes is becoming increasingly important to explore as workplace practices and policies have greater potential for impact on upward social and economic mobility than educational attainment alone (Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018; Sigelman et al., 2022). Connections Between First-Generation College Graduates and First-Generation Professionals Terry and Fobia (2019) name the parallels that exist between the college and workplace environments that create comparable challenges as FGC students transition into white-collar, professional careers as FGPs. Both environments set White, middle-to-upper class culture as the standard of normativity that all other racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups are evaluated against in a form of cultural imperialism (Garriott, 2020; Stephens et al., 2014; Terry & Fobia, 2019; Yosso, 2005). In both settings, White, middle-class values and norms are perceived as superior, and its unspoken rules are implicitly understood and practiced by those who belong to the dominant group (Garriott, 2020; Okun & Jones, 2001; Stephens et al., 2014; Tatum, 2000; Terry & Fobia, 2019; Yosso, 2005). For FGC students and FGPs who identify as ethnic minorities and from low-income backgrounds, these dominant culture norms can create invisible and unspoken challenges to belonging and biases in workplace outcomes, such as hiring and career advancement (Terry & Fobia, 2019). Similar to how FGC students must navigate an unknown world in their university, their transition into the workplace often exposes pathways 17 and choices, such as electing benefits or selecting a training program, that they must face without the guidance of their family or home community (Olson, 2014; Terry & Fobia, 2019). The extant literature has minimal research exploring how FGC students experience the college-to-work transition and career development process, which creates a knowledge gap for career service centers in supporting them (Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018; Olson, 2014; Tate et al., 2015; Toyokawa & DeWald, 2020). This knowledge gap also exposes the inadequacy of the current social systems and structures to support FGC graduates under the false assumption that obtaining a higher education degree effectively creates equal opportunity (Tate et al., 2015). Given the parallel experiences and overlap between the two populations (Terry & Fobia, 2019), first-generation professionals are best understood through the literature on FGC students. While scholarship defines FGC students in a variety of ways, researchers commonly reference someone who is the first in their immediate family to attend a 4-year college program and for whom neither parents completed a bachelor’s degree, and thus, face more systemic disadvantages and challenges compared to their continuing generation peers (Dominguez-Whitehead et al., 2021; Garriott, 2020; Harlow & Bowman, 2016). FGC students are a rapidly growing demographic group, making up over 50% of the undergraduate degree college enrollment population, and they are disproportionately represented by people from economically and racially marginalized backgrounds (Garriott, 2020; Smith, 2023). FGC students are more likely to come from a lower socioeconomic background, to identify as a student of color, to be an immigrant, to speak English as a second language, or have a disability (Garriott, 2020; Smith, 2023). First-generation college graduates are not a monolithic community; they represent a vast range of lived experiences shaped by their unique combination of social class, racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds (Olson, 2014; Tate et al., 2015). Because 18 this population holds multiple marginalized identities and thus face intersecting combinations of challenges and barriers, understanding the perspectives and lived experiences of FGC students and FGPs can reveal important systemic gaps and vulnerabilities (Garriott, 2020; Smith, 2023). Microsystem Factors Impacting First-Generation Professionals The Role of Parents and Family. FGC students’ home context and relationships deeply shape the career development process from their self-efficacy beliefs and expectations, their career interests, their perceived career choices, and overall satisfaction with their career (Tate et al., 2015). While a growing body of literature acknowledges the critical role of parents and caregivers in FGC students’ postsecondary journeys, their influence on career development trajectories remains largely unknown (Smith, 2023). Simultaneously, the current research on career development theory assumes that parents or caregivers hold the social and cultural capital necessary to guide students through the job seeking process (Smith, 2023). This gap in the literature then presumes a deficit-orientation to parents and caregivers of FGC students (Smith, 2023). In response, multiple studies, such as Smith (2023), reframe the FGC student experience using Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth framework to highlight the assets of this population. While they faced challenges due to their identity as FGC students, many study participants cited their backgrounds as sources of strength (Tate et al., 2015; Smith, 2023). A key theme that emerged from the literature was how parents provided meaningful sources of emotional support and motivation to persevere in the face of challenges (Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018; Smith, 2023). Some FGC graduates expressed that watching their families struggle financially influenced their career choices while also driving them to change their own trajectory (Tate et al., 2015; Smith, 2023). Especially amongst those from immigrant families, a key source 19 of motivation in their academic and career journeys was the determination to succeed and financially support their parents as a way of demonstrating love and honor (Smith, 2023). Other study participants described how their family’s stories provided inspiration for exploring new career pathways, such as witnessing their parents’ struggle with the healthcare system and sparking an interest in healthcare (Smith, 2023). Some FGC graduates described finding motivation from knowing that they were acting as role models for their siblings or communities (Tate et al., 2015). Participants also cited that their FGC student backgrounds helped them to exercise more gratitude for their opportunities, exercise independence, and adapt in the face of challenges (Tate et al., 2015). Parents of FGC students support their children’s career development through transferring familial capital, broadly defined as the family’s behaviors and resources used to shape their children’s future (Smith, 2023; Yosso, 2005). In Smith’s (2023) interviews with predominantly immigrant first-generation college students, several participants spoke about the magnitude of their parents’ sacrifices, whether it was facing extraordinary challenges in moving to the United States or taking on financial loans to cover the cost of college. Study participants also identified the choices that parents and caregivers of FGC students made to prioritize their children’s success, such as the choice to immigrate to the United States or seeking neighborhoods with good school districts to raise their children (Smith, 2023). Participants detailed the ways that their parents built familial capital by teaching them the values needed to succeed in the future, such as a strong work ethic and resourcefulness (Smith, 2023). FGC students reported resilience and responsibility as core strengths that they developed through their interdependent family relationships (Covarrubias et al., 2019). 20 While FGC graduates, like any individual, can be intrinsically motivated by their own passions and interests, research suggests that external factors may be particularly influential in their career decision-making (Garriott, 2020; Smith, 2023). These external motivations are often intertwined with their family’s implicit or explicit expectations, such as securing a pathway to upward social mobility or establishing financial security (Garriott, 2020; Smith, 2023). These expectations can manifest as parental pressures early in an FGC student’s academic journey to secure a pathway to a prestigious job (Smith, 2023). With limited knowledge about what options may be available to their children, parents of FGC students can fixate on careers in healthcare, law, engineering, and business (Smith, 2023). These external expectations can be especially salient and urgent for immigrant parents, who have often made tremendous personal and financial sacrifices seeking better opportunities for their children (Smith, 2023). FGC students also shared an awareness that their families could not provide them with more concrete advice or guidance in their academic journey or career choices after graduation (Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018; Tate et al., 2015). While home communities and family systems are important sources of support, they hold complex dynamics that can add additional stressors for FGC graduates (Olson, 2014). Although parental support and expectations play a salient and largely positive role in motivation, FGC graduates simultaneously described them as sources of tension, anxiety, stress, and guilt (Smith, 2023). Many FCG students emphasized experiencing incredible internal pressure to make their family and community proud (Garriott, 2020). Others reported navigating conflicting emotions of pride, guilt, and stress for exceeding the achievements of their current family members or experiencing new opportunities that they did not get to share (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015; Garriott, 2020). Covarrubias and Fryberg (2015) named this phenomenon of grappling with the 21 salient acknowledgement that systemic inequities exist at a deeply personal level as “family achievement guilt.” Another common theme that emerged from the research was the struggle to fit in, whether it was learning the cultural norms of their predominantly White, middle-class institutions or creating a new relationship dynamic with their families as their own identities evolved (Storlie et al., 2016). Because FGC students and FGPs are exposed to a new world in higher education and subsequently in their professional careers, they often experience identity transformations that their family and friends label as forgetting their “roots” (Olson, 2014, p. 202). Some Latinas described the feeling as being an “outsider” to their own family and exploring how they fit in as cultural trailblazers who were refining career pathways for themselves and their families (Storlie et al., 2016). Some parents of FGC graduates respond by exercising controlling behaviors to keep their children close to the family unit or prescribe a pathway for success based on what they perceive is best for the family (Olson, 2014). FGC students need to reconcile the experience of traversing two distinct settings—their home setting and their academic institutions (Garriott, 2020). This reconciliation experience often creates a complex socio-emotional landscape, which can influence feelings of belonging and schoolfamily compatibility (Garriott, 2020; Olson, 2014). Many FGC students report needing to code switch to fit into the implicit culture and norms of their academic institutions, causing them to feel like they are somehow betraying their home community (Garriott, 2020; Olson, 2014). As they transition into the workplace, FGPs continue to experience internal challenges reconciling their multiple identities from working class backgrounds to the white-collar work environment, which can create feelings of being an outsider while establishing their new career paths (Olson, 2014). Similar to FGC students, many FGP participants shared feeling 22 disillusionment about the importance of code switching or learning how to communicate in a way deemed acceptable by the workplace, which was often prioritized above their results or dedication (Burwell & Maldonado, 2022). When prompting participants to answer the question, “Looking back, what do you wish you had known, going into the professional world?” Burwell and Maldonado (2022) noted that 43% of FGPs answered communication skills for the workplace. In contrast, only 9% of non-FGPs cited communication skills as a response to the same question. Despite facing feelings of isolation in the workplace, FGPs often respond by diminishing both their challenges and accomplishments because they felt relatively insignificant to the challenges that their families faced at home (Olson, 2014). The Role of Mentors. First-generation students from working class and immigrant backgrounds are often subconsciously limited to the career pathways that they are exposed to, which make mentorship and networking outside of their family units even more critical for this population (Dominguez-Whitehead et al., 2021). Mentoring relationships, particularly ones grounded in mutuality and reciprocity, can be an important part of a FGC student’s postsecondary experience and personal development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Demetriou et al., 2017). Demetriou, Meece, Eacker-Rich, and Powell’s (2017) qualitative study found that mentorship relationships came from diverse sources. One type of mentoring relationship was one of the academic mentor, usually with a professor or a teaching assistant, who helped them to navigate their postsecondary educational pathways (e.g., selecting their classes, deciding on whether or not graduate school was important to their career, etc.) (Demetriou et al., 2017). Another type of mentoring relationship described was the peer mentor through a shared class or mutual involvement in an organization (Demetriou et al., 2017). FGC students described peer mentors as someone who was moving through the postsecondary journey alongside them but 23 expanded their perspectives and challenged them to broaden their goals or sense of what was possible (Demetriou et al., 2017). The final source of mentoring relationships came from supervisors, who provided feedback on how to navigate workplace relationships effectively and offered thought partnership on potential career pathways ahead (Demetriou et al., 2017). A common theme throughout the relationships described was that mentorship was not an explicit goal at the start of their interactions (Demetriou et al., 2017). Instead, each mentoring relationship took shape as the student engaged in a meaningful activity (i.e., classwork, office hours, organizations, campus job) together and continued to build upon the established relationship (Demetriou et al., 2017). As many FGC students report choosing their career pathways out of circumstance, mentors play a significant role in helping FGC students make intentional choices about what best aligned to their interests, strengths, and qualifications (Demetriou et al., 2017; DominguezWhitehead et al., 2021). Simultaneously, FGC graduates hold a complex internal landscape that shapes their sense of self-concept through self-efficacy, outcome expectations and goal setting (Olson, 2014). FGC graduates may need additional support from trusted mentors in recognizing that their high levels of self-efficacy can successfully translate into another area, such as from a university to a work setting (Olson, 2014). Because self-efficacy is based on the individual’s perceptions of their experiences, FGC graduates may be overlooking the enormous successes that they have experienced and interpreting their accomplishments more negatively or harshly (Olson, 2014). Mentors can also provide FGC graduates with additional support in appropriately aligning their outcomes, expectations, and personal goals to their career pathway decisions (Olson, 2014). Because FGC graduates lack access to knowledge and social capital in the school- 24 to-work transition, they may determine goals or choose career pathways based on faulty assumptions, such as the amount of training and support they will receive (Olson, 2014). Once in the workplace, FGPs describe challenges with networking, both in terms of lack of skill and lack of access to other white-collar professionals who could help accelerate their career progression through mentorship and guidance (Terry & Fobia, 2019). Without access to mentors and networks, FGPs shared that they had to learn how to navigate the office culture independently, which felt “foreign” and “inauthentic” when compared to their own lived experiences (Terry & Fobia, 2019). When interviewing supervisors about what characteristics they considered in evaluating their employees’ competence, supervisors stated that interpersonal, “soft” skills were just as important as technical skills (Terry & Fobia, 2019). These interpersonal skills included effectiveness at navigating the same office culture dynamics that FGPs cited as challenging, such as following the proper etiquette when managing up to authority figures or adjusting their communication styles to incorporate workplace terminology and a palatable level of political correctness and indirectness (Terry & Fobia, 2019). Thus, FGPs emphasize the importance of professional mentors who can help them rapidly navigate these implicit social rules and workplace expectations by making them more explicitly stated into concrete strategies (Olson, 2014; Terry & Fobia, 2019). Many of the supervisors interviewed described being able to take on this mentorship role for their employees to support their individual growth and career advancement (Terry & Fobia, 2019). The Role of Social Networks (Mesosystem Factors) Impacting First-Generation Professionals As FGC students look to transition into the corporate sector after graduation, they cite the lack of personal connection into a professional network as a barrier (Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018). Many parents of FGC students hold blue-collar or non-professional jobs, and thus their 25 social networks did not overlap with the industries or sectors that new graduates hoped to break into (Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018). Furthermore, FGC students noted that the professional world was not a topic of conversation at home, which limited their cultural exposure and left them unaware of the gaps they would need to purposefully fill on their own (Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018). Many participants described that their professors and faculty members often worked under the false assumption that they had existing networks and social capital to support their career development (Tate et al., 2015). Thus, first-generation college students are more likely than their continuing-generation peers to navigate their job searches alone or through the use of online resources instead of seeking help through career services on their campus or attending career fairs (Smith, 2023). In Hirudayaraj and McLean’s (2018) study, participants expressed surprise that “who you know” (p.99) in the corporate sector could open more doors of opportunity than their college degrees alone. Similarly, participants shared that an important part of professional networking with senior leaders or hiring managers was connecting with them on common personal interests or activities (Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018). Some participants described the process of deliberately picking up new hobbies to build these personal connections while others expressed feelings of discomfort and inauthenticity at the performance of fitting in (Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018). Ultimately, the corporate workplace can signal—implicitly and explicitly—to FGPs that they do not belong (Burwell & Maldonado, 2022; Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018; Stephens et al., 2014). Since informal networking channels can pose challenges, FGPs are significantly more likely than their non-FGP peers to report that structured programs, such as college work-study programs, employee resource groups, formal professional development, and leadership trainings, were helpful to their career development, supported their ability to receive 26 promotions, and hone their professional skill sets (Almeida et al., 2021; Burwell & Maldonado, 2022). Macrosystem Factors Impacting First-Generation Professionals The Role of Social Class. Despite more public acknowledgement about the importance of gender, race, and ethnicity in today’s workplaces, socioeconomic class is often absent from the discussion of diversity, equity, and inclusion (Burwell & Maldonado, 2022). Social class is an increasingly important lens to understand modern day workplace outcomes and dynamics because economic capital disparities between lower-, middle-, and upper-class families are widening within the United States compared to just 10 years ago (Burwell & Maldonado, 2022; DeOrtentiis et al., 2021). The most common ways to distinguish social class standing consists of a combination of income level, educational attainment, and occupational status (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021). While social class creates distinct cultural norms and values, the extant literature has limited information on how socioeconomic backgrounds impact individual workplace experiences and outcomes (Covarrubias et al., 2019; Burwell & Maldonado, 2022; Stephens et al., 2014). Moreover, research suggests that social class can play a role in shaping one’s identity and self-concept, which in turn influences one’s behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021; Stephens et al., 2014). This phenomenon is especially consequential in the job search process as new graduates must engage in self-regulatory behaviors without structured support systems to guide them, such as setting goals, reflecting on their progress, and persist through inevitable setbacks and rejections (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021). Graduates from a higher social class may have greater success engaging in these self-regulatory behaviors because they have had more access to confidence-building opportunities, such as internships and development programs 27 (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021). Graduates from a higher social class may have more role models and mentors within their network compared to their lower social class peers, which can increase their job search self-efficacy, access to valuable information, and emotional supports (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021). In contrast, graduates from a lower social class may have fewer job-related relationships within their networks, which can impact what kinds of jobs feel attainable to them in the first place (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021). Social class can also determine the core motivations driving the job search process (Rao & Neely, 2019). In their career aspirations, working-class graduates value upward social and economic mobility, whereas middle- and upper-class graduates prioritize pursuing their individual passions (Rao & Neely, 2019). Social class is a concept that reflects individuals’ real and perceived access to resources based on their respective standing in a socially constructed hierarchy system (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021; Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018). These resources include three broad categories, including social capital, cultural capital, and economic capital (DeOrtentiis et at., 2021; Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018). Social capital reflects the strength of relationships networks to support achieving one’s goals (Almeida et al., 2021; DeOrtentiis et al., 2021). Cultural capital describes the intangible skills and knowledge to navigate interpersonal dynamics that ultimately strengthen an individuals’ position in the social structure (Almeida et al., 2021; DeOrtentiis et al., 2021). Finally, economic capital includes tangible resources such as discretionary income and the accumulation of wealth (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021). Within the concept of social class, the broad assumption is that individuals belonging to a higher level of social class have increased access to social, economic, and cultural capital compared to their lower social class peers (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021). Because people are inclined to interact most with groups who share the same resources, the various social classes are often consciously and unconsciously isolated from one 28 another (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021). This myopic orientation to social structure can result in compounding inequitable access to resources and opportunities and manifesting significant differences in lived experience (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021; Stephens et al., 2014). The Role of Social Capital. Social capital can take on many forms, such as access to information, through relationships that intentionally strive to enhance and nurture benefits to the recipient (Almeida et al., 2021; DeOrtentiis et al., 2021). Almeida, Byrne, Smith, and Ruiz’s (2021) study suggests that social capital may be more important than grit in contributing to FGC students’ success. While Angela Duckworth’s concept of grit has long been a popular theme in education, critics highlight that grit places too much emphasis on the individual to achieve success and implicitly assumes that privilege plays a role in that success (Almeida et al., 2021). In contrast, social capital as a concept recognizes that relationships with others as individuals, groups, or institutions play a significant role in shaping success (Almeida et al., 2021). While effectively leveraging social capital is a skill that all college graduates must utilize to successfully complete their program, it is even more critical for the success of first-generation college students (Almeida et al, 2021). FGC students who engaged in social capital enhancing activities (e.g., developing close relationships with continuing generation peers or participating in student organizations) reported increased motivation, strengthened critical thinking skills, and higher levels of persistence (Almeida et al., 2021). Simply put, cultivating social capital can increase and complement individual grit. The Role of Cultural Capital. The concept of cultural capital refers to the attitudes, behaviors, and values held by a group that support social mobility (Almeida et al., 2021). Education systems and white-collar professional workplaces reinforce and reward individuals who emulate dominant cultural capital, which centers White, college-educated, and middle-to- 29 upper class backgrounds (Almeida et al., 2021; Stephens et al., 2014). In addition to cognitive aptitude and technical skills, both educators and employers agree that non-cognitive, “soft” skills are important ingredients to success (Almeida et al, 2021). In transitioning to the white-collar workplace, FGC graduates must often develop and refine a new set of skills that can often clash with their sense of identity from their working-class background (Covarrubias et al., 2019; Olson, 2014; Stephens et al., 2014). In middle-class and upper-class homes, caretakers nurture expressive independence, which values personal freedom and choice, individual thinking, creativity, and challenging the status quo (Covarrubias et al., 2019; Stephens et al., 2014). Meanwhile, working-class homes emphasize hard independence, which values teamwork, discipline, and respect for rules and authority figures. (Covarrubias et al., 2019; Stephens et al., 2014). As FGC students navigate the multiple stages of the job application process for the first time, such as submitting a resume, dressing in professional attire, going through a formal interview, the gap in social and cultural capital can grow even more apparent (Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018). The current literature suggests that perceived social class standing already shapes how employers make hiring decisions, such as giving preferential treatment to candidates with applications that signal a stronger cultural fit (e.g., elite institutions, expensive hobbies and interests, etc.) (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021; Stephens et al., 2014). Because applicants from middle-class backgrounds already fit within the hiring manager’s expectations for a strong employee, they are more likely to be hired and set up for success (Stephens et al., 2014). Meanwhile, employees from working-class backgrounds struggle with feelings of belonging as well as experience barriers to their career advancement as their managers do not fully appreciate the strengths of hard interdependence culture (Stephens et al., 2014). 30 FGPs report mixed emotions towards these new cultural norms (Covarrubias et al., 2019). Some embraced the independence while others found the cultural mismatches as sources of tension between their connections with family (Covarrubias et al., 2019). In Olson’s (2014) study, FGC graduates described a “growing awareness… of ‘social class contrast’” (p. 201) where they grew increasingly aware of the differences in the social norms and rules of their work community and home community, leaving them feeling disconnected and reluctant to share these new experiences with their friends and family. The Role of Economic Capital. Aside from these examples of social and cultural capital, social class can create salient differences in access to economic capital (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021). Economic capital includes access to financial resources as well as the knowledge to navigate its systems effectively (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021). Amongst the knowledge gaps, FGPs cite challenges with understanding the financial system to support their educational and professional goals (Dominiguez-Whitehead et al., 2021). They also report having little guidance or knowledge about navigating critical financial processes, such as securing a loan, negotiating a salary, and navigating benefits options goals (Dominiguez-Whitehead et al., 2021). In addition to these tactical skills, FGC students unknowingly set themselves behind their continuing generation peers by taking on low paying jobs that do not help them develop relevant work experience (Garriott, 2020; Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018). FGC graduates later described how they were caught off guard by how challenging it was to transition from college into the corporate world because they were unaware that employers were expecting them to be building their resumes through internships or learning programs in their field of choice (Garriott, 2020; Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018). College students who have completed a paid internship start their transition into the professional world with higher base salaries, experience more career 31 satisfaction, report higher levels of confidence in navigating their careers, and express greater satisfaction with their educational investment than their peers who did not complete a paid internship (Torpey-Saboe et al., 2022). As consequential as they can be for the college to career transition, access to paid internships is inequitably distributed even when controlling across college majors (Torpey-Saboe et al., 2022). A report from the Strada Education Network (2022) found that Black and Latine students, women, low-income, and first-generation college students were less likely to participate in a paid internship (Torpey-Saboe et al., 2022). Graduates from a higher social class often have access to financial safety nets, which buoy their ability to search for more desirable employment opportunities and to privilege pursuing career opportunities as an extension of their passions and interests (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021; Rao & Neely, 2019). These financial safety nets include the resources to purchase formal business attire, technology, and transportation as well as a less immediate need to repay accumulated debts and take on more calculated career risks (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021; Rao & Neely, 2019; Terry & Fobia, 2019). Meanwhile, graduates from a lower social class may have multiple competing demands while searching for a job, such as providing financial and emotional support to family members (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021). As a result, they may feel increased pressures to accept a less desirable job opportunity to meet their present needs (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021; Rao & Neely, 2019). Many first-generation college graduates accept positions below their qualification-levels, which often translates into spending more of their early professional years in junior-level positions and a slower start to the return on their educational investment (Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018). For Hirudayaraj and McLean’s study (2018), it took nearly five years for all of their study participants to obtain a job requiring a 32 college degree after graduation. These examples further illustrate the powerful influence of social class even when factoring in similar levels of educational attainment. The participants in Terry and Fobia’s (2019) study identified a lack of access to resources, typically available to those from a middle-to-upper socioeconomic background, as potential barriers to their sense of workplace belonging and career progression. Examples of these resources include unpaid internships, travel abroad programs, and specialty learning and development programs (Terry & Fobia, 2019). Similarly, participants in Terry and Fobia’s (2019) study also cited the lack of discretionary income towards expensive hobbies, leisure activities, and travel that supported a sense of camaraderie and personal connection between their colleagues. Participants described feeling left out as they watched their colleagues bond over these shared interests and experiences (Terry & Fobia, 2019). Research confirms that families from affluent backgrounds intentionally and strategically foster their children’s interests in extracurricular activities based on future career pathways in highly selective industries, putting them at a social advantage over their peers from low-income backgrounds (Rao & Neely, 2019). The differences in socioeconomic background also manifested in spending habits outside of the workplace, such as shopping for popular brand-name clothing and engaging in happy hour events, which signaled belonging between their colleagues and strengthened their network outside of working hours (Terry & Fobia, 2019; Stephens et al., 2014). Despite the numerous challenges, FGPs in Terry and Fobia’s (2019) also talked about how their working-class background instilled a strong work ethic, resourcefulness in the face of challenges, and drive to succeed. The Role of Collectivist Cultures. Low-income first-generation college students experience cultural tensions between the expectations of their schools, which are rooted in 33 middle-class norms and operate from values of independence and individualism, and the expectations of their home environments, which often reflect collectivism and interdependence as core operating values (Covarrubias et al., 2019; Garriott, 2020). Research supports the theory that students from cultural backgrounds aligned with university cultural values are more set up for successful outcomes while students from mismatched cultural backgrounds are more likely to experience conflict and confusion in navigating these often-implicit changes (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015; Covarrubias et al., 2019; Garriot 2020). For example, many FGC graduates from collectivist communities are reluctant to network, navigate the politics of relationship dynamics, and engage in self-promotion (Olson, 2014). First-generation college students and continuing-generation students’ cultural differences are also reflected in their motivations to pursue an education (Covarrubias et al., 2019). While continuing-generation students are motivated by growing as distinct, recognized individuals, first-generation college students often reported more interdependent motivations, like supporting their family by obtaining better opportunities after graduation (Covarrubias et al., 2019). In their first two years of study, Covarrubias et al. (2019) learned that first-generation college students’ grades were negatively correlated with these interdependent motivations, reflecting the competing demands they juggled while in school. First generation college students, particularly those identifying as Latine and Asian, often face unique challenges in their career development when trying to reconcile their traditional family roles with the individualistic cultural norms of the university setting (Covarrubias et al., 2019; Storlie et al., 2016). While a middle class, White dominant cultural norm values independence as a sign of success, students from collectivist cultural norms can find it challenging to resolve their desire to stay close to their families and be seen as successful 34 (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015). When compared to White and continuing generation peers, firstgeneration college graduates and ethnic minorities are more likely to engage with their family members through interdependence, proximity, and frequent engagement (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015). In addition, first-generation college graduates and ethnic minorities are more likely to prioritize the needs of others, which can create added stressors when these students are exploring career pathways as the firsts in their family (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015). For FGCs from collectivist cultures, family support is a critical ingredient to their academic success (Storlie et al., 2016). While their family may support their academic studies, these students may experience pressures to prioritize their family responsibilities first (Storlie et al., 2016). For these populations, first-generation college students are often taking on parental or caretaking roles in their family in six distinct family roles—providing emotional support, acting as a language and/or financial broker, offering physical support, caretaking for a sibling, providing financial support, and giving advice (Covarrubias et al., 2019; Storlie et al., 2016). In Storlie et al.’s (2016) qualitative study of first-generation Latina students, participants described experiencing competing values and expectations between their home and university settings, which in turn impact their career development. For example, family members may expect their students to take on additional emotional, financial, and domestic caretaking responsibilities that compete with the time that universities may expect them to dedicate towards individual studies or networking (Storlie et al., 2016). Summary The experiences of FGC students and FGPs are intricately intertwined (Terry & Fobia, 2019). In contrast to their continuing generation peers, FGC students perceive more career barriers and lack of access to career-enhancing resources, such as family support, mentorship, 35 financial support, knowledge of opportunities, and professional networks (Harlow & Bowman, 2016; Toyokawa & DeWald, 2020). Toyokawa and DeWald’s (2020) study concluded that FGC students scored significantly higher in citing the lack of social support, time, and financial resources to explore future careers when compared to their non-FGC peers. Paradoxically, Toyokawa and DeWald’s (2020) study also found that the lack of time and financial resources had a positive effect on the career decision-making self-efficacy for FGC students. The researchers hypothesize that while many FGC students have family and work commitments outside their role as students, they may perceive these barriers as challenges that they could overcome and thus increase their motivation and self-efficacy levels to seek a better future position (Toyokawa & DeWald, 2020). Similarly, DeOrtentiis et al.’s (2021) study concludes that social class is not an accurate predictor of job search behaviors despite the disparities in access to social, cultural, and economic capital between social classes. In fact, graduates from lower social classes exhibit higher motivation levels than their higher social class peers (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021). These study results serve as a reminder that the effects of barriers are highly dependent on how the individuals perceive and interpret them, whether as a threat, a challenge, or an opportunity (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021; Toyokawa & Dewald, 2020). Multiple studies reframe the FGC student and FGP experience using Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth framework to highlight the assets and strengths of this population (Dominguez-Whitehead et al., 2021; Garriott, 2020; Smith, 2023; Tate et al., 2015). Yosso (2005) challenges the assumption that people of color have a social and cultural capital deficit necessary to gain social mobility in comparison to their White peers. Schools and other organizations then embed this assumption into programs aimed at correcting students’ lack of knowledge, social skills, and ability, which further institutionalizes deficit-based thinking and 36 reinforces that dominant cultural norms are the only valuable forms of social capital and knowledge (Yosso, 2005). More concretely, Garriott’s (2020) research emphasizes the need for FGC students to be supported through intentional socio-emotional and identity development that positively frames their unique cultural contexts’ strengths, capabilities, and social capital. FGC students can also be supported by strengthening their ability to critique systemic and structural conditions (Garriott, 2020). By supporting students’ ability to reflect on their own values, FGC students are better equipped to navigate internal and external influences across the home, college, and workplace setting and align their actions to reflect these values (Garriott, 2020). FGC students who are attuned to how their identity and background can positively shape their academic and workplace experiences can surpass the performance expectations of their peer group and experience higher levels of career self-efficacy (Garriott, 2020). Children of Immigrants: The New Second Generation As the United States postsecondary landscape sees an increase in first-generation college students and students with an immigrant background, the next generation to enter the workforce will similarly hold more first-generation professionals (Dominguez-Whitehead et al., 2021). Although FGC students and FGPs represent a diverse range of intersecting marginalized identities (Garriott, 2020; Olson, 2014), this study highlights the unique lived experiences of first-generation professionals who also identify as children of immigrants. The population that scholars have dubbed “the new second generation” (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019, p. 384) plays a significant role in shaping current and future immigration policies and determining the cultural impact on the United States. The new second generation, or sometimes referred to more simply as “children of immigrants” (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019, p. 384), includes both the 1.5 generation (i.e., born in a foreign country and immigrated to the United States as children) and 2nd 37 generation (i.e., born in the United States to immigrant parents) populations. A significant portion of this population was born or immigrated to the United States in the early 1990’s, spurred by President Lyndon B. Johnson’s signing of the Hart-Cellar Bill in 1965 (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019). While they span a broad array of social identities (e.g., race, ethnicity, social class, religion, etc.), the vast majority of the new second generation were born in the United States and grew up as Americans with varying levels of connections to their parents’ birth-country (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019). In addition to their diversity, this population also experiences a considerably wide range of outcomes that emerge in distinct patterns based on their racial and ethnic identities (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019). For example, East Asian immigrant youth are more likely to be enrolled in high school while Latine and Caribbean immigrant youth experience higher levels of non-enrollment (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019). These distinct patterns based on racial and ethnic identity are particularly salient for educational attainment levels because they continue into disparate labor market outcomes (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019). Research confirms that these disparate outcome patterns can continue or even be exacerbated with the next generation, likely reflecting the significant systemic barriers that these immigrant populations face in their community (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019). Zhou and Gonzalez’s (2019) research establishes that an immigrant family’s socioeconomic status, and thus their access to social, cultural, and economic capital, is highly correlated with their children’s social mobility outcomes. However, some immigrant communities find ways to build significant ethnic capital that mitigate the impact of low socioeconomic status (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019). For example, Chinese working-class immigrant parents in New York have grouped their efforts together through Chinese community churches, 38 organizations, newspapers, and social groups to support their children in navigating the United States educational system (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019). As a result, the children of this New York Chinese working-class immigrant community experience educational outcomes on par with, and at times exceeding, their White, middle-class classmates (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019). Similarly, this access to ethnic capital can explain why Chinese and Vietnamese immigrant first-generation college students graduate from their postsecondary education at the same rates as their middleclass peers (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019). Across the various racial and ethnic groups, the new second generation shows positive signs of upward social mobility with higher educational attainment levels overall and moving into occupations earning higher levels of income than their parents (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019). Researchers refer to the success of the new second generation as the “immigrant paradox” (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019, p. 391) wherein the children of immigrants outperform their nonimmigrant peers of the same race or ethnicity across multiple educational and social factors. Zhou and Gonzalez (2019) suggest that the immigrant paradox exists because the children of immigrants have access to both the ethnic capital from their parents and the cultural capital to fluently navigate the language, norms, and practices of the United States, giving them the power of choice between which they leverage as they work towards their goals. The strength of an immigrant community’s ethnic capital is largely correlated with the levels of selectivity, largely determined by educational attainment, that a group is granted to immigrate to the United States (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019). The degrees of selectivity range across immigrant groups and shape the overall American public perception of each group (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019). Hyperselected (i.e., immigrant populations who enter with higher college attainment rates than the general population of their country of origin and the United States) 39 immigrant groups are correlated with stronger educational attainment levels and social outcomes, regardless of individual family units’ socioeconomic levels (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019). The increased levels of selectivity results in more ethnic capital being available to all members (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019). Career Development and Advancement The purpose of this study is to explore the career development and advancement journeys of first-generation immigrant professionals. This section synthesizes how recent scholarship conceptualizes modern day career development and advancement. In the traditional organizational career from the early to mid-1900’s, employees began their careers through entrylevel positions and attained better career outcomes by moving internally through a series of hierarchical promotions in the near-lifelong tenures (Litano & Major, 2016). This model of career development was based on both job security and longevity within a single organization (Litano & Major, 2016). This model also operated under the assumption that the ideal worker’s personal life was irrelevant and separate from their work life (Litano & Major, 2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution Contemporary career development and pathways are profoundly shaped by major global technological advancements that researchers have categorized into distinct eras or “industrial revolutions” (Hirschi, 2018). Researchers have dubbed the current era the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” (p.193), which includes developments such as digital automation, artificial intelligence, and cloud computing (Hirschi, 2018). While the other Industrial Revolutions also included the use of technology to enhance the work employees were doing, what makes the Fourth Industrial Revolution distinct is that technology is being used to replace human labor (Hirschi, 2018). Research has not fully explored the consequences, positive and negative, of the 40 Fourth Industrial Revolution on the future of work, but researchers agree that modern career development has fundamentally changed (Hirschi, 2018). Contemporary Career Development Characteristics With the exponential rise of technological advancements and an increasingly globalized economy, organizations are choosing to value flexibility over longevity, opting for shorter terms of employment, continuous cycles of restructuring, and fewer layers between the most entry level and senior level employees (Litano & Major, 2016; Nagy et al., 2019; Rao & Neely, 2019). While career development has traditionally been defined by a steady upward progression in title and salary within an organization, modern careers are increasingly dynamic, flexible, and driven by individual interest and meaning-making (Hirschi, 2018; Nagy et al., 2019; Rao & Neely, 2019; Vande Griek et al., 2020; Zacher & Froidevaux, 2021). Contemporary careers are less linear and driven more by internal markers of success (e.g., living in alignment with one’s personal values) than by external milestones (e.g., the steady accumulation of a high paying salary) (Hirschi, 2018; Nagy et al., 2019). Because complete career development within a single organization is challenging under the modern workplace structure, the onus lies on individuals to consider how they can best position their skill sets as transferable across multiple organizations (Litano & Major, 2016; Jeong & Leblebici, 2019; Rao & Neely, 2019; Vande Griek et al., 2020). Thus, contemporary career advancement can be achieved through changing organizations while demonstrating a commitment to the work itself, making passion and dedication to a mission a desirable and marketable trait (Rao & Neely, 2019). In addition, the modern workplace integrates a “whole life” approach to career development, acknowledging that work and personal needs mutually influence one another (Hirschi, 2018; Litano & Major, 2016). Though this “whole life” approach was initially geared towards women in the workplace, contemporary career 41 development now integrates this outlook across genders (Litano & Major, 2016). This is particularly salient for younger generations of employees who value workplace conditions that allow them to maintain work-life balance as equally valuable as their career outcomes (Litano & Major, 2016). Jeong and Leblebici (2019) conceptualize career development journeys broadly as “the sequence of job positions over a person’s lifespan” (p. 299). As employees are encouraged to chart their individual career pathways, they are also societally expected to acquire the training, education, experience, certifications, or credentials in order to gain access to the next career moves (Jeong & Leblebici, 2019). When charting individual career paths, people are highly influenced by societal norms that help them increase their earning power and social status (Jeong & Leblebici, 2019). The period of early career pathing is a particularly vulnerable and critical juncture (Jeong & Leblebici, 2019). Access to these entry points can be fraught with challenges depending on one’s sociopolitical identity markers, such as age, race, gender, and socioeconomic status (Jeong & Leblebici, 2019). This early career period is also critical because it can have an anchoring effect that determines future earnings and leadership potential for the duration of one’s career (Jeong & Leblebici, 2019). As a result of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, changes to the global economy have significantly undermined the overall social and political capital of individual workers, deepening existing income inequalities between those seeking new entry into white-collar careers and those already working in them (Hirschi, 2018; Rao & Neely, 2019). Career Development Through a Human Lifespan Theory Lens Several researchers have developed theories that overlap career development with human lifespan theory to explain how people’s careers evolve with their life stage needs (Nagy et al., 2019; Zacher & Froidevaux, 2021). The lifespan approach to career development merges 42 biological changes, psychological changes, cognitive changes, and societal milestones across the major human developmental stages from childhood to late adulthood (Nagy et al., 2019; Zacher & Froidevaux, 2021). Levinson’s life stage development model defines four distinct stages, including childhood and adolescence (ages 0–22), early adulthood (ages 17–45), middle adulthood (ages 40–65), and late adulthood (ages 60 and beyond) (Nagy et al., 2019). The early adulthood stage is marked by transitioning from formal education into the workplace, exploring career interests, and building foundational skills necessary to succeed in a chosen career path (Nagy et al., 2019). The middle adulthood stage is formed around choosing distinct priorities and building long-term goals in their respective career path (Nagy et al., 2019). The current body of literature has not fully explored the late adulthood stage; however, given the rising age of today’s workforce and later retirement ages, it continues to be an important area of further research (Nagy et al., 2019). Career Advancement in Asian American First-Generation Immigrant Professionals The purpose of this qualitative study is to understand how the first-generation immigrant professional identity and surrounding environmental conditions can shape individual career advancement journeys. Asian American FGIPs are a population whose lived experiences can uniquely offer insight into the invisible structures and barriers in the workplace that hinder career advancement. In addition to navigating multiple marginalized identities, they also face additional hidden challenges along their pursuit of career advancement, such as being the first English speaker in their family. This section integrates research about Asian Americans as a population, children of immigrants, career development theory, first-generation college students, and firstgeneration professionals to support the research methods outlined in the following chapter. Defining Asian Americans 43 Despite what the monolithic label implies, the term “Asian American” spans over 20 unique nationalities with distinct ethnicities and a wide range of languages, dialects, religions, customs, and cultures (Au, 2022; Hsieh & Kim, 2020). Accounting for roughly 6.5% of the total American population, Asians are the most rapidly growing immigrant group in the United States, comprising over 60% of the current immigrant population between 2017 to 2019 (Au, 2022; Tran et al., 2019). Chinese, Indian, Filipinos, Vietnamese, and Koreans make up the largest nationalities represented amongst the umbrella term Asian American, totaling 83% of this population (Tran et al., 2019). A large wave of Asian and Latin American immigrants settled into the United States after Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965, and the resulting children of these immigrant populations are now graduating from formal education and slowly entering the workforce (Huang, 2020). The cultural influence of the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965 on the Asian American story is significant, with nearly 98% of its current population having directly immigrated or descended from immigrants after the act was passed (Au, 2022). Asian American Workplace Outcomes While a plethora of research studies the academic outcomes of Asian American students, the literature on their workplace outcomes is extremely limited, only first coming into publication after 1997 (Huang, 2020; Tran et al., 2019). The limited scholarship on this population can be explained partially by Asian Americans not holding the same political power as other minority groups, but it is also tied to their more recent immigration history (Huang, 2020). Tran, Lee, and Huang (2019) emphasize the role of hyperselectivity (i.e., more likely to have a college degree compared to the general population in the United States and in their country of origin) in explaining their extraordinary education outcomes. In fact, research suggests that Asian American educational and economic outcomes are more correlated with the 44 resources that they had prior to immigration, not the access to opportunities once in the United States (Lee et al., 2008). Hyperselectivity can both strengthen the overall ethnic capital available to their immigrant communities and create a positive stereotype perception of being smart and hardworking that extends to all Asian Americans, regardless of the unique differences between each ethnic group (Tran et al., 2019). While Asian Americans have attained remarkable educational outcomes, the pattern of high achievement does not continue into the workforce (Huang, 2020). Tran, Lee, and Huang (2019) found that Asian Americans have not reached workplace parity when controlling for educational attainment and relevant work experience. Asian Americans are vastly underrepresented in managerial or leadership positions, even in industries and sectors where they are overrepresented (Huang, 2020). Despite what labor market data may predict based on their educational attainment, Asian American workers often hit the proverbial “bamboo ceiling” of their professional trajectories (Huang, 2020). In essence, Asian Americans must be overeducated and overqualified in order to access the same career advancement opportunities as their White colleagues in the workplace (Tran et al., 2019). Researchers suggest that Asian immigrant parents impress the importance of education upon their children as a relatively straightforward pathway to success, which aligns with the fact that Asian immigrants also tend to be hyperselected (Huang, 2020). Asian immigrants are also known to build substantial ethnic capital in the form of community resources, nonprofit organizations, religious centers, test-prep schools, and tutoring centers centered on supporting children of immigrants through K–12 education and college admissions (Huang, 2020). However, the community’s ethnic capital does not have an equivalent network of resources to support navigating the workforce (Huang, 2020). 45 Once entering the workforce, networks and professional relationships become important sources of information and doors of new opportunity (Huang, 2020). In Huang’s (2020) qualitative study of second-generation Asian American professionals in New York City, the overwhelming majority of participants shared that they did not receive career advice or support from their parents or ethnic community members. This effect was magnified further for children of working-class immigrant parents (Huang, 2020; Smith, 2023). Participants’ parents expressed a desire for their children to find financially stable, well-respected careers, though limited by their own knowledge of what career pathways were possible (Huang, 2020; Smith. 2023). In both Huang (2020) and Smith’s (2023) qualitative studies, participants recounted how their parents implicitly and explicitly defined career success as becoming a doctor, lawyer, engineer, and sometimes a businessperson. Many children of working-class immigrant parents expressed frustration with their parents’ limited knowledge of the American professional landscape (Huang, 2020; Smith, 2023). Some participants described conversations where their parents would actively discourage their children from pursuing college majors or careers that they could not concretely grasp, such as a political science or international studies degree (Huang, 2020; Smith, 2023). Despite the pressures to establish financial security post-graduation, working-class immigrant parents could not offer practical knowledge or advice on how to navigate these career pathways successfully or help make connections to networks (Huang, 2020; Smith, 2023). Ultimately, participants relied on independent online research or institutional resources, such as career centers, school-based alumni networks, or formal recruiting events (Huang, 2020; Smith, 2023). Participants also cited informal networking and information sharing between peers, former classmates, or alumni as important sources of support (Huang, 2020; Smith 2023). 46 Asian Americans in the K–12 Education Sector Despite Asian Americans being so prominent in education outcomes, they are notably underrepresented in the education sector itself (Tang, 2023). While the number of Asian American students in the K–12 education system continues to grow, the number of Asian American educators remains stagnant and disproportionately low at just 2% of the total public school teaching force (Tang, 2023). This number drops to just 1% when accounting for K–12 school leaders (Taie et al., 2022). There are a number of factors that can explain this discrepancy, many of them stemming from Asian immigration history. Asians were precluded from immigrating to the United States until the Immigration Act of 1965, which selected for highly educated and skilled Asian workers (Tang, 2023). Many of these workers settled into careers that made use of their previous education and training in the sciences. For the immigrants who came from the education sector in their respective home countries, the lack of English-proficiency became a barrier to continuing their education careers in the United States (Tang, 2023). More recently immigrated families, seeking to secure their children’s upward social mobility, guide their children away from the education sector and into more stable, lucrative, and high-status industries, such as law or healthcare (Tang, 2023; Smith, 2023). Although they recognize that their children’s interests and passions are important factors in choosing a career path, many working-class immigrant parents believe that professions in the K–12 education sector in the United States do not establish the social status and financial security for which they have worked and sacrificed so much (Tang 2023; Smith, 2023). Simultaneously, many children of immigrants are deeply motivated by giving back to their parents through career success and supporting them financially (Smith, 2023). By contrast, American teacher candidates overwhelmingly cite altruistic and intrinsic motivations, such as making a difference to 47 individual children’s lives or making a difference for society, as the key reasons why they chose to become educators (Rutten & Badiali, 2020). This reveals the cultural tensions that Asian American children of immigrants face, where their Asian heritage emphasizes a more pragmatic, interdependent approach to choosing a career while their American upbringing values passion and personal interests as an important source of career motivation (O’Keefe et al., 2021; Rao & Neely, 2019). These factors combined create an enormous cultural opportunity cost for Asian American children of immigrants to pursue a career in the K–12 education sector. Additionally, the education sector largely omits Asian Americans from the K–12 curriculum, barring a few examples of marginalization, such as the Japanese American incarceration (Hsieh & Kim, 2020). The K–12 education sector is largely unaware of how to practice cultural responsiveness to its Asian American student population and can instead perpetuate stereotypes such as the Model Minority Myth, which leaves vulnerable students without the resources and support needed (Tang, 2023). Aside from challenges in recruiting Asian American professionals into the K–12 education sector, there are also several challenges that influence their experiences and thus their long-term retention, such as experiencing racebased microaggressions that can heighten feelings of tokenism (Tang, 2023). With growing attention around diversity, equity, and inclusion in the education sector, Asian Americans are often absent from the conversation (Hsieh & Kim, 2020). However, they are often portrayed as having no challenges under the model minority myth or used as a dividing wedge in the BlackWhite racial binary (Hsieh & Kim, 2020). This leaves little room to dialogue about real challenges facing the community, such as the increase in racist attacks against Asian Americans due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Au, 2022; Hsieh & Kim, 2020). Model Minority Myth 48 Research suggests that Asian Americans, like many other marginalized populations, experience negative racial stereotypes that can hinder their career advancement (Huang, 2020; Tran et al., 2019). The Model Minority Myth, which paints a picture of Asian Americans as docile, hardworking, and high achieving, sets up a racial hierarchy with Asian Americans as the favored minority group (Hsieh & Kim, 2020; Lee, 1994; Lee et al., 2008). Largely credited to William Petersen’s 1966 publication “Success Story: Japanese American Style,” the term ‘model minority’ was used to describe the economic and academic success of Japanese and Chinese Americans, linking their achievements to a stereotyped depiction of their cultural values (Lee et al., 2008). Since its inception, the concept of the model minority has been used to prove the achievability of the American Dream (Lee et al., 2008). The Model Minority Myth serves to discredit claims of structural racism from marginalized communities, particularly the lived experiences of the Black community, by providing a counternarrative of successful educational outcomes (Au, 2022; Lee et al., 2008). It implies either that structural racism does not exist or that it can be overcome with the “right” cultural values, releasing organizational and institutional accountability to address harmful practices and policies (Au, 2022; Lee et al., 2008). Not only does the Model Minority Myth trivialize the struggles of other marginalized racial groups, but it also causes internal strife within the Asian American community for anyone who feels unable to live up to a perfect image of success (Au, 2022, Lee et al., 2008). While the Model Minority Myth may create positive expectations in the education setting that helps to boost Asian American student performance, it can also create a rigid perception of high achievement that can cause people to hide their struggles or experience great shame for failing to meet them (Huang, 2020; Lee et al., 2008; Tang, 2023). Under the monolithic umbrella terms used, the challenges and struggles of distinct ethnic communities within the Asian American 49 label are rendered invisible unless the data is further disaggregated (Hsieh & Kim, 2020; Lee et al., 2008). While the Model Minority Myth is largely associated with being a “positive” stereotype, it is also the source of racial resentment and can be turned into “a threat to white America and white entitlement to resources” (Au, 2022, p. 191). There is a long, painful history of White Americans turning on Asian American success, whether the brutal murder of Vincent Chin in response to the success of the Japanese automobile industry or protesting the presence of “too many” Asians in school districts or universities (Au, 2022). Perpetual Foreigner Stereotype & Yellow Peril On the other side of the Model Minority Myth is the idea of Yellow Peril or the Perpetual Foreigner, which is a stereotype rooted in orientalism that paints Asian Americans as foreign, threatening, dirty, and uncivilized (Au, 2022; Lee et al., 2008). The Perpetual Foreigner stereotype portrays Asian Americans as aliens living in the United States and never fully part of the American cultural fabric, no matter the degree of cultural assimilation (Hsieh & Kim, 2020). Lee et al. (2008) observes that this “unassimilable” (p.76) stereotype leads to Asian Americans often being neglected in political discourse and prevented from having a voice in decisionmaking that will shape their lives, most poignantly like the forced internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. By setting them apart from Americans, the Perpetual Foreigner stereotype is meant to cast a suspicious lens on Asian Americans, who are continually asked to prove their “Americanness” (Hsieh & Kim, 2020). Using the Stereotype Content Model, Huang (2020) notes that dominant culture groups will evaluate marginalized culture groups based on their perceived levels of competence (i.e., skill-based ability) and warmth (i.e., social agreeability). Due to the Model Minority Myth, Asian Americans are perceived as competent but deficient in warmth (Huang, 2020). This assessment 50 feeds into another stereotype that Asian Americans are docile and hardworking but lacking in the assertiveness and independent thinking necessary to lead in the American workplace (Huang, 2020). When combined with the Perpetual Foreigner stereotype, which consistently views Asian Americans as outsiders, competence can also be seen as threatening (Huang, 2020). Behaving in ways that veer too far away from these stereotypes (e.g., communicating too assertively) can also generate negative reactions, so Asian Americans find themselves in a bind of double standards in the workplace (Huang, 2020). Overall, research shows that these stereotypes may be influencing the kinds of opportunities that people are willing to hire or promote Asian Americans (Huang, 2020). One participant in Huang’s (2020) qualitative study recounted feeling that she was being compensated less than her colleagues for the same work and attributed to the “positive” stereotypes associated with her racial identity. Likewise, Asian Americans report cases of racebased microaggressions that make them question their belonging in the workplace, diminish their individual contributions, or maintain stereotypes of the Perpetual Foreigner (Huang, 2020). Most Asian Americans describe either minimizing or deflecting these microaggressions or attempting to create intentional distance away from racial stereotypes in order to avoid further marginalization (Huang, 2020). Summary The purpose of this qualitative study is to deeply examine the lived experiences of firstgeneration immigrant professionals (FGIPs) in their pursuit of career advancement. FGIPs reflect a subset of both the first-generation professional (FGP) and the first-generation college (FGC) graduate population while also identifying as an immigrant or a child of immigrants. While these three populations (i.e., FGIP, FGP, FGC graduates) represent a diverse array of social identities, 51 the common thread that binds their experiences is their role as “cultural trailblazers” (Storlie et al., 2015, p. 304), who must learn to navigate the unspoken rules, values, and norms of a metaphorical new world as the firsts in their family. Whether the new world is a four-year university or a white-collar professional setting, the journey includes shifting from a culture shaped by multiple marginalized identities into the dominant culture shaped by Whiteness and middle-class values (Almeida et al., 2019; Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2014; Garriot, 2020; Terry & Fobia, 2019; Yosso, 2005). These cultural trailblazers must seek pathways to their own belonging and success by positively framing their unique cultural contexts (DominguezWhitehead et al., 2021; Garriott, 2020; Smith, 2023; Tate et al., 2015). They must also skillfully maneuver numerous challenges along the journey to career advancement, including a complex internal emotional landscape (Garriott, 2020; Olson, 2014), a limited social network (Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018), and a lack of access to critical resources (DeOrtentiis et al., 2021; Terry & Fobia, 2019). In addition to the challenges posed by cultural trailblazing, FGIPs must navigate the uncharted waters of contemporary career development. With the rapid, exponential growth of technological advancements in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the future of modern work remains unclear but radically transformed (Hirschi, 2018). Though often rendered invisible under the Model Minority Myth (Hsieh & Kim, 2020) and the Perpetual Foreigner stereotype (Au, 2022), the stories of Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals can offer notable insights about economic mobility and opportunity in the United States. In an increasingly globally integrated economy, the “new second generation” of immigrants holds a uniquely influential role in shaping immigration policy and leaving a lasting imprint on the cultural fabric of the United States (Zhou & Gonzalez, 2019, p. 384). Because Asian American FGIPs hold multiple marginalized identities, the challenges to their 52 career advancement can highlight systemic barriers that shape other marginalized communities. In particular, the precipitous drop in Asian American representation from the academic setting into managerial and leadership roles in white-collar workplaces calls attention to the systemic barriers to career progression (Chui et al., 2022; Tran et al., 2019). The following section of the literature review introduces the study’s conceptual framework, which illustrates the analytical lens used to explore the research questions posed in Chapter One. Conceptual Framework This study’s conceptual framework integrates two theoretical frameworks to understand how the intersecting identities of FGIPs and surrounding environmental conditions influence their career development journeys. Kimberle Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality framework offers a lens to understand how the multiple marginalized identities of FGIPs can create invisible barriers to career advancement. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory addresses how surrounding conditions at the micro-, meso-, and macrosystems shape FGIPs’ professional aspirations and career development journeys. Kimberlé Crenshaw’s Intersectionality Framework Outlined in her seminal work “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” Kimberlé Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality framework offers a lens into evaluating how individuals holding multiple, compounding marginalized identities can often go unrecognized within a social and political system built around singular identities. Crenshaw (1989) delves into a problem of practice in the legal system wherein Black women’s complex multitudes of identity were reduced to a one-dimensional lens of either race or gender, failing to consider the interactions and power dynamics flowing between them. This either-or-approach to 53 understanding identity resulted in the invisibility and erasure of Black women’s marginalization in both antiracist and feminist discourse (Crenshaw, 1989). The Roles of Privilege and Marginalization in Intersectionality Intersectionality posits that analysis through a singular identity tends to center the experiences of the most privileged amongst the group, which in turn, further marginalizes those who face multiple, compounding barriers (Crenshaw, 1989). Simply put, intersectionality highlights the existence of numerous subgroups of lived experiences within the same identity umbrella, though the most privileged subgroups tend to be the ones whose stories are amplified (Crenshaw, 1989). In the case of Moore vs. Hughes Helicopters, Inc, the court did not acknowledge Moore’s ability to represent a case of gender discrimination because White women’s experiences are implicitly privileged as the standard in gender equality policies and practices (Crenshaw, 1989). This example illustrates how identity is most salient when experiencing marginalization because privilege is usually implied or perceived as universal (Crenshaw, 1989). Failure to acknowledge intersectionality can also create unintentional hierarchies within communities that can further erase marginalization within (Crenshaw, 1989). Crenshaw (1989) highlights the example of patriarchy within the Black community that subordinates and subjugates Black women. However, as public discourse is unable to hold an intersectional approach to understanding the gender dynamics present in a racial group, Black women’s stories are invisibilized in order to prioritize the social discourse around the broader Black community (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991). Building on her seminal publication in 1989, Crenshaw (1991) further clarifies the importance of separating discourse about the differences found in social identities from “the power of domination” (p.1242). Crenshaw (1991) argues that naming differences in 54 lived experience is not inherently threatening or dominating. In fact, Crenshaw (1991) warns that “ignoring difference within groups contributes to tension among groups” (p.1242). Intersectionality as a Framework and Tool While Black femmes have historically played a leading role in the development of intersectionality, the framework itself holds endless potential for application across a myriad of scholarly disciplines, sociopolitical identities, global contexts, and organizational studies (Carbado et al., 2013; Cho et al., 2013; Crenshaw, 1989, 1991). In her analysis of the legal system’s barriers for women of color in domestic violence cases, Crenshaw (1991) again examines the role of race and gender but also the role of socioeconomic status, immigration status, low English fluency, and cultural identity. Researchers acknowledge intersectionality as an analytical tool that creates a starting point for rich, nuanced, and dynamic exploration of social power dynamics rather than a set of fully developed and tested theories (Carbado et al., 2013; Cho et al., 2013). In a similar vein, Carbado et al. (2013) argues that intersectionality is best approached as a “work-in-progress” (p. 305). Intersectionality is more than the “sum” (p.140) of numerous held identities (Crenshaw, 1989). It holds the potential to empower communities and to alleviate intragroup tensions by acknowledging the differences in lived experiences and building solidarity through shared challenges under the same systems of oppression (Carbado et al., 2013; Cho et al., 2013; Crenshaw, 1991). Since intersectionality weaves in an examination of power dynamics, distinct identity groups can also engage in meaningful dialogue through a broader experience of privilege (i.e., proximity to power) and marginalization (i.e., distance to power) (Carbado et al., 2013). To create real social change, Crenshaw (1989) argues that problems of practice should center the experiences of the most marginalized and disadvantaged within a group and design solutions that 55 best support them, which then creates pathways accessible to everyone. Because the framework is highly dependent on understanding the unique context and setting of a problem of practice, it can unearth connections between inequitable outcomes and local history, policies, and structures (Carbado et al., 2013). Furthermore, intersectionality’s potential as a framework is fully realized when it creates the conditions to transform broken systems through robust empathy and understanding, not just critically interrogate them (Carbado et al., 2013). Applying Intersectionality to First-Generation Immigrant Professionals Far from being a monolith, first-generation professionals can hold multiple intersecting identities, each identity facing unique challenges and magnifying the barriers to social mobility and career advancement when held together (Crenshaw, 1989; Olson, 2014; Tate et al., 2015). The overwhelming majority of FGC graduates identify as people of color and from low-income backgrounds (Garriott, 2020; Tate et al., 2015). In addition, FGC graduates are more likely to hold marginalized identities, such as being non-native English speakers, immigrants, having a disability, or entering the workforce at a non-traditional age (Garriott, 2020). Olson’s (2014) research highlights the challenges of navigating the changes in social class as FGC graduates enter the workforce. Some research suggests that gender expectations within each unique cultural context can also play a significant role in career expectations (Garriott, 2020; Tate et al., 2015). A theme that appears across the literature is how all FGC graduates must reconcile navigating a new world of information and social norms that is unfamiliar to their home support network (Garriott, 2020; Olson, 2014; Tate et al., 2015). However, the current body of literature on this population evaluates each identity independently instead of considering how they might work in tandem to both support and hinder FPG career advancement. Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality 56 framework recognizes the limitations of viewing each social identity independently and elevates the opportunities in grappling with the complexity of individual stories. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems model adds to the existing body of literature on human psychological development by conceptualizing the person, their surrounding environment at various levels, and the reciprocal interactions between the two. Bronfenbrenner (1979) defines development as “a lasting change in the way in which a person perceives and deals with his environment” (p. 3). At the core of this theoretical framework, Bronfenbrenner (1979) posits that “human development is a product of interaction between the growing human organism and its environment” (p. 16). Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems model is depicted as a set of concentric structures nested within each other and with the person at the center of the model. The ecological systems model includes the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The center-most level (i.e., the microsystem) depicts the setting immediate to the developing person while the outermost levels (i.e., the macrosystem and chronosystem) depict the settings indirectly influencing the developing person (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Aside from the settings interacting with the person, the ecological systems model also uniquely highlights the way in which settings interact with each other to influence the developing person’s environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Microsystem Description and Factors The microsystem reflects the most proximal activities, roles, and interpersonal relationships to the developing person at the center of the model and how these elements are ultimately perceived by the person interacting with them (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In particular, the microsystem emphasizes the roles of dyads, which is the reciprocal, mutual relationship between 57 two people (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Dyad relationships act as the building blocks of the microsystem because of their significant impact on human development in and of itself (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Together, these building blocks create the foundations for more complex interpersonal structures (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In addition to dyads, the ecological systems model asserts that roles play an important part in a person’s development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Bronfenbrenner (1979) defines roles as the accepted societal expectations for one’s behaviors corresponding to a certain social position. Roles shape how others in the immediate and surrounding environment interact with a developing person, which in turn influences how the individual then acts, behaves, thinks, and feels (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Role expectations are generally defined by sociopolitical labels within a culture, such as one’s age, gender, occupation, race, socioeconomic status, etc. (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Roles are also deeply embedded into an environment and often reinforced by the implicit and explicit attitudes and behaviors of the people within the environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Thus, Bronfenbrenner (1979) posits that ecological transitions, which are changes in roles or settings, can be particularly salient sources of human development. Mesosystem Description and Factors The mesosystem in the ecological systems model refers to the interactions between a set of two or more microsystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). These interactions can take place in the changes between settings, intermediary social circles, and formal and informal communications (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Bronfenbrenner (1979) further clarifies that these interactions are enhanced when the settings, roles, activities, and relationships are culturally and socially diverse. According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), a person’s potential for development in the mesosystem is 58 facilitated when information, advice, and experiences are shared by people across settings and in advance of any transitions. Bronfenbrenner (1979) also asserts that a person’s developmental potential is also better supported when the roles, activities, and relationships between two settings are compatible with each other to feel integrated. Development is positively enhanced when roles, activities, and relationships encourage mutually beneficial dynamics between settings and contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Moreover, joint activities and dyad relationships can support positive development when they model the experiences and skills necessary for success within a setting (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Macrosystem Description and Factors The macrosystem addresses the unique belief systems, ideologies, or subcultures that exist within a society (e.g., socioeconomic, ethnic, or religious groups) that create a distinctive ecological environment that influences how an individual develops within its parameters (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The macrosystem allows researchers to explore the nuances and social complexities within multiple settings (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). For example, Bronfenbrenner’s perspective recognizes shifts in social class as a unique ecological transition from one setting to another (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Furthermore, Bronfenbrenner (1979) emphasizes that what an individual perceives about their environment matters more for their psychological development and behavior than what is objectively true. Bronfenbrenner (1979) centers the idea of “development-in-context” (p.12), wherein the study of the immediate and surrounding environments can lend insights into the mental schemas, relationships, and social processes that shape human development. Applying Ecological Systems Theory to First-Generation Immigrant Professionals 59 Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems is a highly applicable theoretical framework to understand the surrounding conditions that support or hinder first-generation immigrant professionals’ career development and advancement in a white-collar workplace. While the study of psychology has a lopsided emphasis on the individual, Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems model asserts that human development results from the dynamic interaction and relationship between the individual and the surrounding environment. Applying this framework at the microsystem level, Demetriou et al. (2017) explores how reciprocal mentoring relationships can support FGC student career development through expanded perspectives, increased motivation, and academic and professional support. Mesosystem-level factors in the ecological systems can explain the role of social networks in Hirudayaraj and McLean’s (2018) phenomenological study of FGC graduates transitioning into the workforce. By placing the FGIP at the center of the model, Bronfenbrenner’s expansive framework merges the biological, psychological, and sociological disciplines together to depict a holistic story of a person’s development in society (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Furthermore, Zacher and Froidevaux (2021) recommend applying Bronfenbrenner’s framework to future research in order to merge the perspectives of individual, micro-, meso-, macro-, exo-, and chronosystem factors together to understand the relationship between life stage and career development. While Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems model is a powerful framework to understand the interactive relationship between human development and its surrounding environment, it has limitations. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems model is difficult to test in an empirical study because of its emphasis on studying human development in context, which is a departure from studies designed to examine research subjects within a controlled laboratory environment or under direct observation. However, Bronfenbrenner (1979) argues that 60 ecological validity of research studies should be pursued directionally instead of an endpoint destination because of the inherent complexity between a growing human being and their physical and social environments. From Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) standpoint, the researcher’s ability to interpret results is limited by their ability to understand and analyze the impact of the environmental context surrounding the participants. Figure 1 First-Generation Immigrant Professional Career Development Conceptual Framework Conceptual Model The conceptual model for the study merges Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality framework and Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory to illustrate the surrounding conditions shaping first-generation immigrant professionals’ career development. As depicted in 61 Figure 1, the individual is placed as the subject of the model and surrounded by both internal and external influences, pictured as a group of concentric circles. The concentric circle most proximate to the individual reflects the conditions that most directly shape the individual while the outermost circle reflects the surrounding conditions that indirectly shape the individual. The innermost circle, where the individual is placed, reflects the internal influence of multiple intersecting identities on a first-generation immigrant professional’s career development journey and thus, embeds the role of intersectionality on lived experience. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems provide a lens to examine the complex ecosystem of relationships, social dynamics, and structures that can influence FGP’s career journeys at multiple levels, which are depicted in Figure 1 as the microsystem, mesosystem, and the macrosystem. When the two frameworks are combined, the study’s conceptual model depicts the individual’s multiple, intersecting identities interacting with the surrounding ecological system to create unique experiences of privilege and marginalization within the context of career development. Summary This chapter synthesizes the current literature’s understanding of first-generation immigrant professionals and the surrounding conditions that support or hinder their career advancement journeys. This section first provides an overview of first-generation professionals, including a definition and the connection to first-generation college students. First, this chapter defines the term first-generation professional and explores the limited existing scholarship on this topic. Then, it draws parallels between first-generation professionals and first-generation college students to better understand what conditions, aligned to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems framework, may be shaping their workplace outcomes. Next, this literature review provides an overview of the new second generation immigration population as a subset of first- 62 generation professionals and first-generation college students. It also provides a brief overview of contemporary career development characteristics and the lifespan approach to examining career pathways. Then, this chapter integrates research across themes of first-generation professionals, first-generation college students, children of immigrants, and contemporary career development to introduce the study’s focus on the population of Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals. To conclude the literature review, this chapter explores Kimberlé Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality framework and Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory as the foundational works for this study’s conceptual framework. 63 Chapter Three: Methodology This study explored the numerous invisible barriers to career advancement that firstgeneration immigrant professionals (FGIPs) face in professional organizations (Terry & Fobia, 2019). By examining how intersecting social identities and surrounding environmental conditions shape FGIPs’ career journeys, this study added to the limited literature on this population and identifies potential strategies and resources that could support their continued career advancement. Chapter Three grounds the research questions that guide the study and provides an overview of the design and research setting. It also provides an overview of the researcher’s positionality and relationship to the research and participants. Next, the chapter outlines the data sources, participants, instrumentation, data collection procedures, and data analysis techniques used in the study. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion on the credibility, trustworthiness, and ethics that further enhance the richness and depth of the study. Research Questions The study focused on the following research questions: 1. How do the intersecting identities of Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals shape their career development journeys? 2. When reflecting on their intersecting identities, what surrounding conditions do Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals attribute to supporting or hindering their career advancement? 3. What strategies and resources do Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals use to navigate the challenges to career advancement? 64 Overview of Design This study took a qualitative research approach. The purpose of qualitative research was to generate a holistic understanding of a social phenomenon by diving into deep inquiry about how people experience and interpret the world around them and what they extract in making meaning of the experience (Creswell & Creswell, 2022; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The nature of the study’s guiding research questions focused on understanding how first-generation professionals have experienced their workplaces and using their perspectives to build theories inductively about the surrounding conditions that shape their career advancement journeys (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) also clarify that qualitative research explores areas where a theory does not already exist or may be limited in explaining a phenomenon. This approach aligned with the purpose of the study because the extant literature has a limited understanding of the workplace experiences of first-generation professionals. The defining product of qualitative research is richly descriptive words and pictures that illustrate the social phenomenon (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Consequently, the purpose of this study was to illuminate the invisible stories of first-generation immigrant professionals and their career advancement journey by detailing their experiences through richly descriptive narratives. This qualitative study applied interviews as the only source of data collection. Interviewing is essential in collecting data for social phenomena that cannot be directly observed, such as an individual’s emotional landscape or world view (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Given the nature of the research questions, observations in a natural field setting or artifact analysis would limit a holistic understanding of FGIPs’ career advancement journeys throughout their lifetime. Aligned to Bronfenbrenner’s chronosystem and the role of time in shaping career development, interviews allow for greater range of access to participants’ vast and complex lived experiences 65 (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Creswell & Creswell, 2022). Interviews are also an effective way for researchers to guide the line of questioning that would be most helpful to explore the research problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2022). Research Setting The research setting of this study took place through individual virtual interviews on the Zoom video conferencing platform. The virtual setting not only added logistical convenience for both the researcher and participants, but it also expanded the geographical reach in recruiting participants for the study beyond those who are locally accessible to the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The online interview format also facilitated the use of video recording and audio transcription technology that allowed the researcher to effectively preserve the integrity of the qualitative data, thus strengthening the overall credibility and trustworthiness of the study through an audit trail (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Because of the seamless integration of technology, the researcher was better able to focus their attention on the participants during the interview and exercise sensitivity to further probe what participants are sharing, which can encourage richer qualitative data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Lastly, the video format of the interview supported both researcher and participant to read each other’s facial expressions and nonverbal cues in context, which supports building trust and rapport as well as more accurate interpretation of the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The Researcher This study intersected deeply with my own identities and roles as a woman of color, a daughter of immigrants, a first-generation college graduate, a first-generation professional, and an Asian American. According to Morgan’s (2018) “Intersecting Wheel of Privilege, Domination, and Oppression” visual, these intersectional roles and identities fall underneath the 66 domination line, giving me unique access to the experience of marginalization. I empathize deeply with the struggles of navigating the new world of the white-collar workplace. As a researcher who shares key identity markers with the study’s participants, I was positioned to establish trust and psychological safety during the interview process, which is integral to accessing the rich, descriptive data gathered in qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition, I also stood from my own background and lived experience that these intersectional identities (i.e., being an Asian American, a child of immigrants, and a first-generation professional) also hold beautiful, complex assets. Because qualitative research positions “researcher as primary instrument” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p.16), my positionality allowed me unique access to participants’ experiences and the opportunity to co-construct the narrative of FGIPs together. Being a first-generation immigrant professional is a source of pride and strength for me, not a deficit to overcome. Throughout my dissertation process, I hoped to hold every story with the same love and care that I hold my own and bring a deeply curious learning orientation. Creswell and Creswell (2022) name that qualitative research is inherently interpretative through the lens of the researcher. Instead of striving for objectivity, researchers can identify their personal motivations and potential for bias to clarify how their lens is shaping data collection and interpretation (Creswell & Creswell, 2022; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Creswell and Creswell (2022) also emphasize the need for qualitative researchers to limit the discussions about their personal experiences to set appropriate boundaries for power differentials in the researcher-participant dynamic or prevent skewing participant responses to mirror their own experiences. Thus, a key potential for bias was how my own experiences as a member of this population can influence interpretations from the research. While my positionality helped me 67 build trust with participants, I was intentional about monitoring how much of my own perspective I shared to ensure that their stories remained at the center. When reviewing the speaking time ratios in my transcription software, I maintained an average of 20% speaking time while participants maintained an average of 80% speaking time during the duration of the interviews. As I analyzed the data and identified themes, I remained mindful that no single narrative can fully encapsulate the experiences of first-generation immigrant professionals. Instead of seeking a definitive or uniform story, I approached the research with an openness to the nuances and variations in my participants’ journeys. Similarly, I recognized that Asian Americans are not a monolith. We hold vast, complex histories that include war, colonization, and intergroup conflict. Although these stories often go unspoken, they influence how we see ourselves and each other. Within our communities, we have both endured oppression and, at times, perpetuated it, particularly through deep-seated prejudices and anti-Blackness. As the researcher, I engaged in deep personal reflection about my biases and experiences. I recognized moments where I was more attuned to certain narratives while less sensitive to others, which pushed me to listen with more curiosity. This journey required embracing our stories in their full complexity, even when they challenge the narratives with which we are most comfortable. Saunders (2019) further clarifies that interpretivism in underlying research philosophy is built from the assumptions that reality is inherently complex and subject to multiple interpretations through social construction, culture, and language. By sharing our stories with one another, as well as with other marginalized communities, I hoped to build the foundations for a more expansive Asian American identity that is built on truth, accountability, and collective liberation. 68 Data Sources This section of Chapter Three details why semi-structured interviews were chosen as the primary data source and outlines the sampling and recruitment approach for the study’s participants. It also outlines the instrumentation of the interview protocol and the data collection procedures. Finally, it provides an explanation of the researcher’s approach to data analysis. Interviews This qualitative study used interviews as the primary source of data collection to build understanding of how FGIPs make meaning of their career development journey. Within the continuum of interview approaches (i.e., highly structured to unstructured), this study used the semi-structured interview format (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As the name suggests, semistructured interviews allow for structure in some areas of the interview protocol and flexibility in others (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As illustrated in Appendix A, the interview protocol was a structured flow that explored the same categories of experiences across all participants, such as their background, social identities, and pivotal moments in their career advancement journeys. The structured flow ensured that similar types of data, aligned to the research questions, were captured across all participants. However, the exact wording, order of the questions, or probes used in each segment of the interview protocol slightly varied between participants. The flexibility in questions and sequence allowed for researcher responsiveness to the participant’s emerging narrative (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The semi-structured design also helped the researcher to lead the conversation in the direction that best supported exploration of the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Participants 69 Qualitative researchers are intentional about collecting data from participants who will best help them understand the phenomenon (Creswell & Creswell, 2022; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study explored the career advancement journeys of FGIPs through a purposefully selected group of Asian American FGIPs. Examining the workplace outcomes of Asian American FGIPs can reveal a nuanced picture of both systemic successes and failures within the field of education, the broader labor market landscape, and immigration policies (Au, 2022; Budiman & Ruiz, 2021; Chui et al., 2022; Tran et al., 2019). Though the literature thoroughly explores Asian Americans within the context of student educational achievement, this population is underresearched and underrepresented as employees in the education sector, making up just 2% of the K–12 public-school teaching force (Tang, 2023). Many K–12 education organizations have mission statements centered around empowering low-income communities of color and supporting their access to postsecondary institutions and beyond. Thus, examining the career journeys of Asian American FGIPs within the education sector illuminated the surrounding conditions that support or hinder advancement. This study also examined how multiple, intersecting marginalized social identities can create invisible barriers to career advancement, such as coming from an immigrant background and growing up with caretakers from working class occupations. Given the numerous shared characteristics between FGC graduates and FGPs, participants must have also been identified as the first in their immediate family to graduate from college. According to the lifespan approach to career development, which integrates human developmental stages into its theory, middle adulthood falls within the age range of 40 to 65 years old (Nagy et al., 2019). The middle adulthood stage of career development is defined by focusing on a set of career priorities and intentionally taking steps towards achieving long-term goals within their chosen career paths 70 (Nagy et al., 2019). Because this study explored the strategies and resources that FGPs use to navigate challenges to career advancement, study participants must have accumulated significant professional experience to speak concretely about how they overcame the barriers. The ideal participant profile for this study was as follows: • Identifies as an immigrant or a child of immigrants • Identifies as an Asian American • Identifies as a first-generation college graduate • Grew up with parents or caretakers from working class occupations and made the transition to a white-collar occupation as the first in their family • Age falls within the range 40–60 • Currently works K–12 Education, either through the school system or in an adjacent organization focused on supporting K–12 students This study used network activation and snowball sampling as the primary approaches to recruiting participants who meet the selection criteria outlined above. As an Asian American FGIP who has built a career in the education sector, I have built many relationships with other Asian American educators over the years and belong to an Asian American educators’ professional network. I reached out to my personal and professional networks via email to identify potential participants and ask for help disseminating information about the study to their networks. I also leveraged snowball sampling, which entailed asking participants who meet the selection criteria to name and to refer other potential participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Instrumentation The primary instrument for data collection was a semi-structured interview protocol, included in Appendix A. The interview protocol was structured around five distinct sections that 71 were consistent across all participants. The five sections included: (1) exploring the participants’ upbringing and immigration story, (2) understanding how the participants’ multiple social identities have shaped their career advancement opportunities, (3) examining a career peak or milestone in-depth to make meaning of the role of identity and surrounding conditions in this example, (4) analyzing a career valley or low point to make meaning of the role of identity and surrounding conditions, and (5) synthesizing recommendations by reflecting on the strategies and resources that supported participants in their career advancement. Each section was designed to collect rich qualitative data aligned to the study’s research questions, illustrated in Appendix A. While the sections and overall interview flow remained the same, the probes asked and their exact sequencing were used flexibly to allow for responsiveness to the participant. To facilitate rich qualitative data collection, I sent participants a preview of the questions and topics covered in advance of our scheduled interview time. As shown in Appendix A, the identity exploration section of the interview protocol included a reflection on the social identities that have been most salient in their career advancement opportunities. Given the complexity of identity, the preview included a short list of example social identities to spark reflection. Because people have a wide range of familiarity and experiences with social identities, I wanted to avoid assumptions that participants would be able to readily reflect on their multiple identities and how that shaped their career advancement. Providing a concrete list of examples and previewing the questions in advance supported a richer conversation and brought up stories that participants might not have initially considered. Nearly all participants shared that they reviewed the questions and reflected on them before the interview. Data Collection Procedures 72 As I built a list of potential participants through network activation and snowball sampling, I emailed each individual a screening questionnaire to gather demographic information and ensure that they meet the study criteria. Then, I used the questionnaire responses to select and invite participants for the study, seeking maximum variation in the identities and experiences represented in the participant sample to support a greater range of application and strengthen the study’s credibility (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The email outreach to complete the screening questionnaire and the questionnaire itself are included in Appendix B and C, respectively. The invitation to participate in the study included a calendar link to facilitate scheduling a 90-minute time block for the interview and provided the participants with informed consent paperwork to sign in advance of the interview. The formal invitation to participate in the study is detailed in Appendix D. I recruited participants with a target sample size of 12–15 individuals who met the selection criteria, and I interviewed 17 total participants. The semi-structured interviews took between 60 to 90 minutes to complete, conducted online through the Zoom platform. As I introduced myself and framed the purpose of the interview, I asked for verbal consent to record the interview and to use their perspectives in my research. I followed the semi-structured interview protocol to ensure that the overall interview flow and experience remained consistent across participants. I took field notes in combination with the recorded Zoom audio file and used a transcription platform called Otter.ai to generate textual data for further analysis. This combination of audio recording and transcription ensured that all data was accurately captured for analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I listened to the audio file and combed through each transcription to ensure accuracy of information captured, removed any potentially identifying information, and changed all participants’ names with a pseudonym. The Zoom video recordings were deleted after confirmation that the audio files and transcripts were 73 correctly downloaded. All files were kept in an online password protected Google Drive folder. To close out the interview experience with participants, I re-read the field notes and transcript to create a one-page interview summary with the key themes that emerged and conversation highlights from the interview. I sent them a follow-up email expressing gratitude for sharing their experiences with me, shared the synthesized interview summary, and invited them to add either add in comments to further elaborate on the key themes or schedule a follow-up interview. A total of five participants responded back to my email by adding in comments or amendments to the interview summary, confirming the accuracy of the interview summary, or building upon the key themes with additional reflections. Data Analysis According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), data analysis is the iterative and emergent process of synthesizing and interpreting data to engage in meaning making about the research questions. The data collected and analyzed from the study takes the form of the Zoom audio files and interview transcripts. Qualitative data collection and analysis occur simultaneously, starting from the first interview and read-through of the corresponding transcript (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As a researcher reflects on the first interview, they might notice emerging themes that they refine or verify through the subsequent interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative research findings are also built inductively, meaning that theory is generated from the data in the form of themes or categories (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As each interview was completed, I inventoried and prepared the data for analysis and then used a priori codes based on the study’s conceptual framework to organize the data into broad categories (Creswell & Creswell, 2022). As the study’s conceptual framework and research questions focused on intersectionality and Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, I first used color coding for broad categories 74 such as intersecting identities, surrounding conditions, and strategies and resources. I also noted how participants described these categories as positive, negative, or neutral factors in their career advancement journey. I used my code book to write a short description along with each code and supported these codes with thick, descriptive participant interview quotes. The a priori codes were later broken down into more specific themes that addressed the research questions and generated the study’s findings. Creswell and Creswell (2022) recommend that researchers leave flexibility for surprising or unusual codes in addition to the expected and predetermined codes. To establish rapport and build trust early in the interview protocol, I started each of my conversations asking participants about their family’s immigration stories. The data collected about each individual’s immigration story was incredibly rich and unexpectedly interconnected to the study’s findings. In another example, I began my study assuming that participants and I were defining career advancement in the same way (i.e., more senior leadership titles, increased salaries, broader scope of responsibilities). As I broke apart each code into smaller subthemes, I realized participants were expanding their definitions of career advancement to include other measures of success, such as balancing self-care alongside hard work. Because the concept of career advancement was so critical to the study, I explored it further through the coding process. Credibility and Trustworthiness As qualitative research relies on researcher as the primary instrument of both data collection and analysis, it is the researcher’s responsibility to strengthen the study’s credibility and trustworthiness by leveraging multiple strategies (Creswell & Creswell, 2022; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study incorporated triangulation, member checking, an audit trail, rich and thick descriptions, researcher reflexivity, and including discrepant information. Triangulation refers to the researcher using multiple sources of data to confirm the emerging findings (Creswell 75 & Creswell, 2022; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this study’s case, multiple sources of data refer to including several participants’ perspectives to justify a theme and seeking maximum variation in the diversity of the participant sample selection to increase the theme’s applicability (Creswell & Creswell, 2022; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Member checking describes a strategy where the researcher shares emerging interpretations and themes back with the participants in order to determine if the interpretations feel accurate to the participants who described them (Creswell & Creswell, 2022; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In application to this study, the data analysis procedure included member checking the synthesized findings with participants and providing space for them to share asynchronous feedback via email or engage in a live follow-up conversation. In addition to keeping a meticulous audit trail aided using technology (e.g., Zoom recordings, audio transcriptions), the study used “rich, thick descriptions” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 259) to illustrate the setting and findings. The purpose of rich, thick descriptions is to provide the details necessary for readers to determine if the study’s findings are applicable or transferrable in their own context (Creswell & Creswell, 2022; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Lastly, the credibility and trustworthiness of a qualitative study are inextricably linked with the researcher’s reflexive practices (Creswell & Creswell, 2022; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition to my personal reflection on the biases that I potentially brought through my positionality, I proactively sought the support and perspectives of my chair, classmates, and colleagues to enhance the rigor of the qualitative study. This included the researcher’s imperative to include negative or discrepant information that may provide counter narratives to the study’s main themes (Creswell & Creswell, 2022). While it may be tempting to neatly synthesize the findings, the purpose of qualitative research is to capture an unexplored social phenomenon by diving into how people construct meaning and interpret the world around them (Merriam & 76 Tisdell, 2016). Inherent in that purpose is the acknowledgment that there is no singular “right” way to construct meaning as a FGIP. To access the full humanity of FGIPs, the study explored the diverse range of lived experiences and embraced the complexity of the stories within. Ethics Creswell and Creswell (2022) highlight the importance of forecasting potential ethical issues at various stages of the research study and proactively addressing them in order to protect research participants. My intentions were to serve the interests of first-generation professionals by giving voice and visibility to their workplace experiences through my research study. My hope was that the research findings will increase organizational awareness of the challenges that first-generation professionals face and create more resources, policies, and programs that can support their career advancement journey. Creswell and Creswell (2022) further emphasize the need for researchers to build a trusting relationship with participants by engaging them in informed consent at multiple checkpoints throughout the study, such as sharing the purpose of the study, describing how their stories will be used, and asking for their permission to record the interview. Because the interviews may contain sensitive information about the participants’ experiences, I exercised caution to ensure confidentiality of the participant and any associated organizations by anonymizing the data through fictitious names, removing identifiable information, and storing all files in a secure location. I also engaged participants in informed consent by engaging in member checks to ensure I accurately interpreted their stories in the way they intended. In qualitative research, the credibility and trustworthiness of the study is dependent upon the ethics of the researcher (Creswell & Creswell, 2022). As a qualitative researcher, I was also aware of potential ethical issues in analyzing and interpreting the data. To honor and respect the 77 stories of my participants, I reported multiple, potentially contradictory perspectives and withheld my own desires to shape or craft a narrative to suit my own beliefs and lived experiences. Creswell and Creswell (2022) also emphasize the importance of researchers embodying a “relational ethic” (p. 261), meaning that the participants are treated as fully realized human beings instead of just a test subject for the purposes of the study. In my study, I strived to hold the humanity of my participants first and foremost by listening to their stories, honoring their rights to informed consent and privacy, and designing a thoughtful interview experience that creates the conditions for meaningful dialogue. After many interviews, participants thanked me for listening to their stories, asking thoughtful questions, and creating space for them to reflect deeply on their own experiences. Several shared that they had never had the chance to view all parts of their story as a whole or connect their immigration story to their career pathway, ultimately finding the experience to be a powerful moment of self-reflection. Summary Chapter Three outlines the methodology that supported the data collection and analysis of the research questions. This study used a qualitative research approach to create a holistic understanding of the lived experiences of Asian American FGIPs and their career advancement journeys. Data was collected through a 60–90-minute semi-structured interview conducted over the Zoom video conferencing platform. Participants were purposefully selected through a set of criteria that aligned with the research questions and recruited via network activation and snowball sampling. The study used a screening questionnaire to collect demographic information from participants and ensured that they met the study criteria. With the participants’ informed consent, the interviews were recorded through the Zoom platform and transcribed through Otter.ai. This study merged data collection and analysis for emergent thematic coding that 78 informed the study’s findings. Chapter Three also details the strategies used to strengthen the study’s credibility and trustworthiness, such as member checks, seeking maximum variation in the participant sample, and the researcher’s engagement in reflexive practice. 79 Chapter Four: Findings The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore how the unique intersection of identity and surrounding environmental conditions can shape the career advancement journeys of Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals (FGIPs). Through the lens of Kimberlé Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality framework and Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory, this study uncovered and demystified the invisible structures and barriers in the workplace that shape their career trajectories. Chapter Four first provides an overview of the study participants and examines how they define career advancement. Then, Chapter Four synthesizes the richly descriptive narrative data into six emerging themes: (a) intersecting identities as sources of career inspiration and strength, (b) the complex relationship with the hustle and hard work ethic, (c) the paradoxical constraints imposed by the Model Minority Myth, (d) transforming cultural tensions into opportunities for self-advocacy, (e) the power of one, and (f) the power of a village. A summary of the study’s findings and its corresponding theme is outlined in Table 1 below. The findings of this study address the following research questions: 1. How do the intersecting identities of Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals shape their career development journeys? 2. When reflecting on their intersecting identities, what surrounding conditions do Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals attribute to supporting or hindering their career advancement? 3. What strategies and resources do Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals use to navigate the challenges to career advancement? 80 Because of the fluid, interconnected nature of the study’s research questions, Chapter Four integrates a discussion of each into the six emerging themes to paint a holistic picture of the career advancement triumphs and challenges of Asian American FGIPs. Table 1 Summary of Findings by Emerging Themes Finding Description Finding 1: Intersecting identities as sources of career inspiration and strength Asian American FGIPs draw inspiration and strength from their intersecting identities and backgrounds to navigate their career development journeys. Finding 2: The complex relationship with the hustle and hard work ethic The hustle and hard work ethic served Asian American FGIPs in certain aspects of their career development, but many are now seeking ways to expand their beliefs about professional success. Finding 3: The paradoxical constraints imposed by the Model Minority Myth The Model Minority Myth creates a palpable “box” that defines what is socially acceptable and unacceptable for Asian American FGIPs, ultimately hindering their career advancement journeys. Finding 4: Transforming cultural tensions into opportunities for self-advocacy Asian American FGIPs transitioned from relying on hard work and deference to using strategic networking and direct communication to support their career advancement. Finding 5: The power of one A single individual can have a profound influence in inspiring and empowering the efforts of FGIPs both within and beyond the workplace. Finding 6: The power of a village Success is rarely achieved in isolation. The collective effort, collaboration, and support from a broader community are essential for meaningful progress in one’s career development journey. 81 Overview of Study Participants This qualitative study’s findings are based on individual interviews with 17 Asian American FGIPs working in various roles within K–12 education, including teachers, community liaisons, school leaders, education technology managers, and nonprofit leaders. Relevant demographic information was collected through a survey prior to the interviews. Participants were located in urban areas across the contiguous United States, specifically from California, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon. California was home to 41% of the participant sample, either in the greater metropolitan areas of Los Angeles or the Bay Area. Participants ranged in age from 40 to 58, with 82% self-identifying as being in their forties. Among the 17 participants, seven participants self-identified as a man and 10 selfidentified as a woman. The interview participant sample reflected a diversity of ethnicities within the Asian diaspora, concentrated on East Asians (i.e., South Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese) and Southeast Asians (i.e., Thai, Vietnamese, Burmese, Filipino, Khmer). Thirty-five percent of participants self-identified as East Asian, 41% self-identified as Southeast Asian, and 24% self-identified as multi-ethnic (i.e., two or more ethnicities). The most commonly named ethnicities within the participant sample were Vietnamese and Chinese, both mentioned in five out of 17 demographic survey responses. Table 2 provides an overview of the participants’ ethnicity, gender, and age, referring to each participant by a pseudonym to protect their identity. Table 2 Participant Demographic Overview (N=17) Participant Pseudonym Ethnicity Gender Age Anna Vietnamese Woman 50 Bea Taiwanese, Shanghainese Woman 42 Chloe Vietnamese, Chinese Woman 40 82 Participant Pseudonym Ethnicity Gender Age David Taiwanese Man 46 Emily Chinese Woman 47 Greg Filipino Man 58 Jason Korean Man 42 Katie Vietnamese Woman 46 Kevin Vietnamese Man 40 Leo Chinese Man 43 Maya Khmer Woman 40 Nathan Vietnamese Man 42 Pauk Chinese, Burmese Woman 41 Peter Thai, Chinese Man 44 Rebecca Japanese Woman 58 SJ Korean Woman 41 Sora Filipino Woman 41 Defining Career Advancement Before delving into the findings, it is essential to establish how participants defined a central concept to the research questions: What is career advancement? Grounding in the participants' perspectives on career advancement provides critical context for interpreting the findings and understanding the subtleties of their lived experiences. Most study participants acknowledged that career advancement is traditionally associated with a more senior title and increased salaries, with two participants facetiously referring to it as “moving up the ladder.” While participants implicitly or explicitly defined career advancement in several ways, their responses underscore six distinct themes. First, the majority of participants defined career advancement in terms of increased influence and impact. Maya, a nonprofit leader, shared: When I think about career advancement, I think of scope and impact. My reach, my span, and opportunities of how deeply I can impact a shift in systems and culture… It comes in 83 different forms, whether it’s a program within the larger organization, or it was actually supporting a nonprofit in creating some structure and infrastructure. It might be advocating or doing policy work on specific topics that are really close to my heart. With a nod to their FGIP backgrounds, half of all participants also described career advancement as achieving economic mobility or as a way of changing their life trajectory. Some participants described career advancement as feeling acknowledged and seen for their contributions. Others named deepening their professional expertise and learning as key ingredients to career advancement. Kevin, a high school English teacher, provided an example of being a peer leader for a professional learning community as a source of career advancement, saying, “Even though there’s no monetary gain, that really stretched my thinking. It developed me in certain ways that I wouldn’t if I did not take on that new challenge.” The Role of Agency and Choice For many participants, career advancement was synonymous with having agency and choice. During the interview protocol, several participants noticed that their career valley stories were intertwined with their career peaks. Valleys were frequently described as moments where participants felt powerless or directionless, even in situations that might seem successful from an outside perspective. Peaks often emerged unexpectedly from valleys as participants reflected on their values, recovered their voice, and steered towards a new pathway. When Anna went back to school part-time in pursuit of a master’s degree, she was motivated by the idea of having a greater positive influence in the school system. As she went through the program, she realized that she would have more impact working in her current role at the community-level. Though she was doing well in school, Anna described feeling burnt out and decided to stop the program to prioritize her family and her well-being: 84 I got real with myself. I realized that I want to get up and be able to go different places, instead of just staying in one location… I decided that I no longer want to go to school. I was happy with my decision. It makes sense for me, it makes sense for my family, it makes sense for this community. In the midst of a valley, Anna reclaimed personal agency, pivoted in a new direction that deepened her community liaison work, and clarified what she wanted from her career. Similarly, participants emphasized that career advancement included balance and self-care. Jason, a nonprofit leader, affirmed, “I can’t separate my career from the rest of my life… I look at the totality of my day-to-day. If there’s a next step in my career, it has to advance the entire equation.” These examples highlight that Asian American FGIPs defined career success in the quality of their life, not just through the accumulation of titles and higher salaries. A Paradoxical and Personal Journey Amid the nuanced definitions of career advancement, several participants openly wondered whether they were on the right path, asking themselves questions like, “Am I successful, or am I late to the game? Those are some of the inner struggles, not necessarily related to success. I think it’s my sense of wanting to achieve.” These vulnerable reflections highlight the dynamic and deeply personal nature of career advancement. Beyond external milestones of success, it is an intimate internal journey searching for a sense of belonging and significance. Nathan aptly described career development as: Finding the location in the universe where you maximize three things: You feel passionate about the kind of work you're doing, the purpose of that work is super compelling to you, and the place where you do it resonates with you. 85 In essence, participants recognize that career advancement holds multiple definitions simultaneously, oftentimes conflicting with one another. More senior roles and higher salaries offer a pathway to meaningful economic mobility and greater influence, but these definitions are incomplete on their own. Participants want to be both externally recognized while also internally experiencing personal growth and learning. Participants crave agency and balance, but they may also grapple with uncertainty about whether they have chosen the right path. Instead of being bound by a single destination, career advancement in this study’s context describes a continuous process of navigating the internal and external world towards purpose and belonging. Finding 1: Intersecting Identities as Sources of Career Inspiration and Strength Immigration Stories and the Pursuit of Opportunity In opening the interviews with their family’s immigration stories, Asian American FGIP participants gathered inspiration and strength from their complex intersecting identities and rich backgrounds to describe their career development journeys thus far. All 17 participants implicitly or explicitly relayed immigration stories reflecting the pursuit of opportunity, whether it was seeking economic and social mobility, refuge from war or political oppression, or the pursuit of personal freedoms. While a common thread emerged around the desire for a better future, participants offered diverse perspectives on how their immigration experiences shaped their career aspirations, often beginning with their education. As an ethnically Chinese family living over three generations in present day Myanmar, Pauk’s parents faced systemic barriers to social mobility, such as being denied access to university education. Reflecting on her family’s background, Pauk made an insightful connection: 86 One thing I knew very clearly growing up was my dad, who didn’t finish past eighth grade, emphasized that we have to do well in school… That was pretty much like a repeating theme growing up… There’s no other options. SJ narrated a similar level of urgency and high stakes in her pursuit of a better future, starting with her experience as a satellite child sent to live with her relatives in South Korea while her parents tried to establish themselves in America. All of [those career choices] are grappled in wanting to keep my family together, not wanting to experience the trauma of family separation, but seeing that the root cause of all the stress had to do with financial insecurity. It made me feel as though I needed to pursue a path that could help me get my family out of poverty. In contrast, participants like Jason and Kevin noted that their parents emphasized the importance of education, but they experienced less intense pressure to secure a path to economic mobility and received more balanced messages at home, such as a focus on family values. In Kevin’s case, his father immigrated to the United States as a refugee after already establishing a prominent career as an educator in Vietnam. Jason’s parents attended university in their home country of South Korea and immigrated primarily in pursuit of their personal freedoms. These immigration stories showcase the incredible diversity within the Asian American community and highlight how different immigration experiences profoundly influence how families establish their lives, even when sharing a common pursuit of social and economic opportunity. Intersecting Identities Fuel Purpose When navigating their career development journeys, many participants found inspiration and deeper purpose in their own upbringings, underscoring how their vocational choices were 87 more than a vehicle for economic mobility. As a child of Vietnamese immigrants and refugees, Chloe became a school leader who built the community that she wished she had as a child: A key part of my story now as an educator is that I didn’t see myself in schools. I didn’t feel like I really belonged. I think that it’s crazy to have grown up in California, where there's so many immigrant families, but I didn’t see that immigrant story reflected back to me… I felt very untethered… It wasn’t until later when I built a school, that it was like trying to heal some part of myself that never felt like I had a place to belong. Several participants similarly chose to start their career path closely aligned to their own background and giving back to their community in a meaningful way, such as being a program director for afterschool programs, a community liaison, or a coordinator supporting firstgeneration college students through their first year of higher education. SJ put it best when she said, “All of my experiences combined helped shape an experience for me that was grounding and ensuring that I could be the advocate that I needed as a child.” An unexpected theme that emerged in 12 out of 17 participant interviews was the portrayal of “doctor, lawyer, engineer” as a benchmark of success. Participants wondered whether the fixation on these three professions represented the pinnacle of economic mobility and security that parents could instill in their children, particularly when they could not offer concrete guidance on how to achieve these goals. While most study participants started their careers proximate to K–12 education, five participants had a nonlinear pathway into the field. Leo began his career as an engineer and considered pursuing a master’s degree in business administration. However, he decided to pivot to become a high school teacher, drawing inspiration from the diversity of his metropolitan community: 88 I think my upbringing in the neighborhood [drew me to teaching.] I had friends who were very smart, and they made it to those specialized high schools where you had to take a test to get in. Different people took different paths. I had a friend incarcerated after high school… I just saw a lot of disparities. I saw the immigrant struggle, the neighborhood struggle. After years of working in product development across multiple industries, David spotted a job opportunity at an education nonprofit organization and was drawn in by both the mission and personal connection: I had a lot of interviews, but I think one main factor that I accepted this job here is because I don't think I’ve ever done anything like this meaningful… working for a company where the products I am developing and thinking about relates to when I was a kid in high school. It’s about: How do we support high school students to achieve postsecondary success? When I read the job description, I thought to myself: I wish I had these kinds of tools and this kind of support. In the ambiguous and undefined waters of modern career development, these examples show how individuals can use their personal experiences as an internal compass, guiding them toward sometimes unexpected but deeply meaningful career paths. Participants not only reflected backwards on their stories as a source of career inspiration, but they also looked ahead to the future through their own children. Fifteen out of 17 participants (88%) mentioned their identity as parents as a significant career influence, adding new layers of depth when connecting vocation to purpose. Some participants relayed stories of how their children sparked new career interests. After working as an engineer in her early career, Pauk described how teaching her two children how to read, add, and subtract inspired her to explore a 89 career in education. Many participants cited more practical insights, such as clarifying how they wanted to use their time to prioritize spending more quality time with their children. Parenthood also crystalized the opportunity to model values and beliefs through career choices while giving them a deeper personal stake in the work itself. Bea, a nonprofit leader with a teaching background, credited being a parent to supporting her career advancement in education by saying, “I think that in education spaces, my identities that I share with others actually helped me show up as a more authentic person. So my identity as a woman, my identity as a mother, because there are so many women and mothers in education. I think it’s true that it has made some aspects of it easier.” Intersecting Identities as a Superpower In addition to career inspiration, Asian American FGIP participants identified unique professional strengths connected with their intersecting identities. When asked which identity he attributed to his resourcefulness at work, Greg immediately credited the years of navigating the intricate logistics and demands of raising four children. He explained, “We got two soccer practices and two gymnastics programs, and we [managed those schedules] for many years… My mind is always working out the logistics.” For Emily, being an English language learner who had struggled in school fueled empathy and connection for students and caregivers in her community. Emily recalled, “I remember clearly starting kindergarten, not knowing any English or knowing how to communicate… I identify with that piece. I, too, was the struggling learner.” Rebecca’s neurodivergence inspired new ways of teaching the curriculum and creating systems that supported students’ diverse learning needs, resulting in the highest success rate at her university and getting nominated for Teacher of the Year by her students. Anna’s identity as a biracial and bicultural immigrant helped her act as a cultural bridge between Vietnamese 90 students and their parents in her community liaison work, granting her access to a population that has historically hesitated to reach out for support. Anna elaborated, “I’m able to help them feel comfortable working with me because I was born in Vietnam. I still practice Vietnamese culture… I also embrace American culture and combine those two things.” As a child of refugees who acted as a translator and advisor for her parents, Chloe grew up keenly aware of the complex systems that historically marginalized communities faced: It’s deeply connected to my belief that we have to do right in the world. We have to protect the people who might not have all the resources to do it themselves yet. It’s like tapping into a well of advocacy. Advocating for your parents and family but also advocating for your community. These narratives provide insight into how career development is influenced by the complex interplay of identities, personal experiences, and the broader social context. While participants’ intersecting identities (i.e., race, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, immigration status) clearly influenced their search for purpose in their careers, it is impossible to determine exactly which identities shaped their paths, to what extent, or how each identity affected them uniquely. Even when probed for more specificity during the interview protocols, participants used broad terms like “background” and “upbringing” to refer to the identities that informed their career motivations. These narratives illustrate how people do not experience the world through a singular identity, but through a combination of multiple identities. Return to Your Why Because a deep connection to purpose was so central to their career journeys, multiple participants emphasized the need to reground in their personal “why.” Emily says: 91 I think you have to go back to your why. What part of your job brings you joy? Education is a hard enough job that you can’t be bitter. You can’t hate your job. You really, truly have to love it in order to [sustain yourself.] What part of the job do you like? Are there things that you can do to reawaken your why? For some participants, connecting to their faith or religious identity helped them reground in purpose whenever they face a career barrier. Pauk described, “Having my faith has helped me understand. I shift my focus from the people and circumstances and situations to something higher.” For others, like Maya and Sora, their immigration stories provided them perspective whenever they face challenges at work. As Maya recounted her career peaks and valleys, she made it clear that her career journey was inextricably linked to her background as a Cambodian refugee by saying, “I never forget the opportunities afforded to me, and sometimes at the expense of something else, like my dad sleeping or my mom’s ability to nurture and care for us the way she would’ve wanted.” Katie used her “why” to give her the courage to make a career change from engineering to nonprofit leadership. She detailed a moment of clarity as she was working in the lab to produce the newest beverage flavor for a major consumer goods manufacturer and asked herself, “Why am I doing this? Is this what I want my contribution to be?” Such accounts collectively demonstrate that the American Dream is not solely about achieving economic mobility but also finding alignment between one’s work and a deeper sense of purpose. Finding 2: The Complex Relationship with the Hustle and Hard Work Ethic In each of the 17 interviews, participants mentioned a deep and complex relationship with a hard work ethic. While participants never explicitly defined it, they conveyed a remarkably consistent understanding of work ethic through the stories they shared about their parents. 92 Although each story had its unique context, they highlighted themes of long, often grueling work hours, underscored by a strong emphasis on reliability and diligence. Whether working in factories, cleaning buildings at night, fixing cars as an auto mechanic, or preparing food for the restaurant, participants described their parents as showing up with integrity and taking pride in doing good, honest work. Many participants, like Chloe, Kevin, and Pauk, emphasized that their parents modeled kindness and generosity, even as they hustled to make financial ends meet. Several participants described hard work ethic as synonymous with not taking vacations or paid time off. Peter recounted the duality of watching his parents’ workplace model: There’s two sides to it, right? It’s important to be grateful because my parents never took days off work. It just wasn’t even in the sphere of possibility… I think there’s a certain grit that I’ve appreciated and embodied to some degree. But then on the other side of that, you see someone who has to go through those experiences, and you realize that’s actually not a great way to work. Though a number of identities can be attributed to this hard work ethic (e.g., gender, race, immigration status, socioeconomic status, etc.), a central theme among the interviews was the dichotomous nature of the hustle, both as a source of workplace strength and potential exploitation. Hard Work Ethic as a Workplace Strength When asked to share a career peak, many participants attributed their success to a willingness to take full ownership over the job responsibilities and exercise resourcefulness to adopt new practices and strategies. For example, while working in a litigation firm, SJ described how going beyond the scope of her responsibilities on every project helped her get promoted quickly and earn the respect and confidence of her supervisors. Similarly, Bea credited her career 93 success to her identity, specifically her "willingness to work outside of the current bounds of [her] hours and to say that the work is done when the work is done. The work is not done at 5 p.m." Despite the number of students doubling in his program from 100 to 200, Greg had to find a way to work within the same budget and with no additional staffing capacity. When asked how she managed to start two schools throughout her career, Chloe linked her strong work ethic to the example set by her parents as they ran their small business: It’s a lot of being willing to do the work. It was never an attitude of “that’s not my job.” I really dislike that phrase because it’s not how I grew up. If you have a hand, you help. If you’re sitting around watching the Simpsons, then you’re folding mooncake boxes… If it felt like it was too much work, I didn’t often say no. You want me to make 200 report cards from scratch? I can do that. You want me to coach all these teachers by myself? I can do that, too. I think it was a lot of grit, tenacity, and creativity, too. In addition to their willingness to exceed expectations, many participants highlighted resilience as a key part of hard work ethic, particularly an ability to maintain hope in the most challenging of circumstances. Despite her dyslexia going undiagnosed until graduate school, Rebecca navigated the tumultuous world of academia with little formal support and resources to ultimately get her doctorate in American literature. After years of watching her parents’ “tireless toil” in the restaurant industry, Bea found a powerful source of resilience and strength: The ability to accept sacrifice and to never take no for an answer, make my own way, do whatever it takes. I think that that actually helped me in my career advancement because I knew that if there wasn’t going to be a way, I could make one.… No matter how hard something is or how much suffering there is involved, I can endure it. 94 As an educator, Bea translated her resilience into her teaching practices by holding students to high academic expectations and being able to see them as valuable, whole, and worthy, even during the most challenging of circumstances. These examples underscore how Asian American FGIPs’ backgrounds, particularly their parents’ resourcefulness, resilience, and work ethic, translated into tremendous strengths in the workplace. Hard Work Ethic as Workplace Exploitation Even the best workplace strengths may have a shadow side, especially when taken to the extreme or used in the wrong context. Several participants mentioned that the root of their hard work ethic came from a deeply seated belief that they had to prove their worthiness. David struggled to take his paid time off days from work because he felt the need to prove himself, working as one of the few racial minorities in his company. SJ vulnerably shared her journey: What I am learning and unlearning is my attachment to perfectionism. Some of that was actually facilitated by my experience as an Asian American woman, or how I was conditioned and grew up in my household, but it was also around being an English Language Learner. When I was an English Language Learner, I just developed a lot of insecurity around keeping up with my peers that facilitated this need to just fit in, whatever the prototype. Three participants, including SJ, shared that their strong work ethic led them to the point of physical illness. While they were achieving success in the workplace, they were also experiencing such severe exhaustion and health issues that they required hospital treatment. A number of participants expressed frustration that the strong work ethic that accelerated their early careers was insufficient for advancing to more senior levels. They spoke of hitting a career ceiling where relentless hard work and hustle were no longer the most valued leadership 95 qualities, yet they were uncertain about what skills were needed to move forward. When layering on multiple marginalized identities, this career ceiling was also experienced as exploitation, whether real or perceived, adding another dimension of complexity to their career advancement. In her career valley story, Bea narrated a time when she felt undervalued and stagnant at work. After working in the same role for several years, Bea tried to apply for different internal positions but was unsuccessful each time. Bea described feeling like her strengths were being taken advantage of: I think it fed into some of the identity pieces because of some of my narratives around the bamboo ceiling. Give the Asian all the hardest work and pile on an inordinate amount, but don’t give her the promotion or the recognition or the leadership title or the money. I felt like the underpaid, overworked Asian employee. SJ illustrated a similar experience when her team leader transitioned out of their role, leaving an enormous staffing vacancy. Mentored and coached by her former team leader to become the successor, SJ took on the responsibility of supporting her team, consistently working 70 to 80 hours a week and not getting compensated for the extra time. SJ later found out that the vacant leadership position was being downgraded to a peer role level, which meant that this would ultimately be a lateral career move. To add further insult to injury, SJ also found out that she would need to go through a formal application process to be considered for it, despite already having taken on many of the responsibilities of the role. When asked to recall the emotions she felt during this career valley, SJ shared: I remember just feeling a lot of anger and rage, and I realized it was because I’m betraying my own boundaries. I’m betraying my ability to understand my own self-worth and value…. You’re asking someone to do work that was previously owned by two 96 separate people, and it’s landing a certain way for me as an AAPI woman. I’m also seeing literature or hearing from other AAPI professionals and thinking, Am I falling into this narrative… of how we can unintentionally be taken advantage of? These experiences highlight how Asian American FGIPs’ hard work ethic could go unrecognized and unrewarded, leaving them to grapple with a system that valued their labor but not their leadership potential. Unlearning Hard Work Ethic and Reimagining Success Although this study did not explicitly seek to explore trauma, it emerged as a significant theme interwoven with many participants’ immigration narratives. These accounts included experiences of fleeing war-torn countries, enduring severe financial hardships, and confronting numerous instances of overt racism. Approximately half of the study participants began their interviews with a somewhat sheepish admission that they did not fully know their parents’ immigration stories, revealing a sense of disconnect from their personal histories that may point to underlying trauma. David described “immigrant mentality” as subconsciously acting in survival mode: I feel like I always have to be on. Checking my phone for email, trying to respond ASAP… Sometimes I don’t know if that’s a positive or negative. We always feel like our switch is on or having to go over and beyond. Many participants described trying to unlearn the idea that the only way to progress in my career is through the hustle. As a former program director supporting recent college graduates from low-income backgrounds entering the workforce, Sora reflected on the ways that the program unintentionally perpetuated a harmful hustle mentality by emphasizing excellence and hard work without considering the possible consequences for glorifying the “grind,” particularly in the 97 context of their lived experiences. These days, Sora’s perspective has evolved to consider what true generational change means, such as living with more spaciousness to prioritize her health, her relationships, and personal fulfillment. Likewise, many other participants expanded their definition of workplace success by sharing that balance and self-care needed to be part of the story. After years of staying quiet and assuming that “just work hard and you’ll get paid off,” Greg found comfort in realizing that his struggles were not unique, a realization he gained through an affinity group for racially marginalized educators. While Greg credited his parents for instilling a hard work ethic as part of his core values, he also wished that his parents were not so singularly focused on achieving financial stability, expressing, “By the time they got to their dream house, none of my siblings lived there.” When raising his own family, Greg reimagined success to include both career success and personal fulfillment: For my children, it’s important to teach that as much as you want to be respectful, you also have to look after yourself, be more assertive, ask for what you want, and pursue what you think is going to make you a better person, a happier person. Jason cautioned against simplifying the complex relationship with the hustle and hard work ethic or reducing the discussion down to overcoming adversity. When I think about what I want for all Asians and Asian Americans, it’s for us to succeed because we’re Asian, not in spite of it. And not just the hard stuff, right? It’s not just because I have the immigrant mentality, and I’m willing to sacrifice happiness.… When we’re no longer struggling to survive, we have to make the transition now from surviving to thriving [emphasis added]. What does a real, thriving Asian family, Asian person, Asian community, look like that’s not just preoccupied with financial or economic success? 98 A strong work ethic and the idea of pulling oneself up by the metaphorical bootstraps through resourcefulness and innovation are often glorified in narratives about the American Dream. However, these narratives collectively demonstrate that the dream is incomplete without a vision for a thriving community—one that honors its past while boldly reimagining a future centered on wholeness and humanity. Finding 3: The Paradoxical Constraints Imposed by the Model Minority Myth The overwhelming majority of participants—all but one—alluded to the prevalence of the Model Minority Myth as a set of cultural and social expectations that both supported and hindered their career advancement. Rebecca captured this sentiment perfectly, stating, “Race is such a difficult subject, and for Asian Americans, there is a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ one to be.” The “right” way to be Asian American, as consistently described across the 16 participants who discussed it, was defined by high academic achievement, industriousness, and a compliant demeanor. Eight participants (47%) noted that the Model Minority Myth seemed to grant them increased access to opportunities during their schooling and early career stages, acknowledging it as a form of privilege. This included being recognized as successful students and swiftly gaining the trust of supervisors through perceived competence and diligence. However, the Model Minority Myth also imposed significant constraints on participants’ career advancement journey, creating challenges that often went unnoticed and unacknowledged. Five participants (30%) described deeply struggling at school and at work but refrained from seeking the help they needed to navigate these challenges. For some, this isolation stemmed from the fear of breaking from the facade of “having it all together” and losing the privileges associated with being viewed as a model minority. Others expressed feeling self-imposed shame or being shamed by others for not fitting into the high-achiever stereotype. This reluctance to 99 seek help was often exacerbated by being one of the few Asian Americans in their organizations, particularly in the K–12 education workforce context where the narrative of the model minority is strongly reinforced in its student population. Whether it was self-imposed, socially reinforced, or a combination of both, these accounts provide compelling evidence that the Model Minority Myth hindered Asian American FGIPs from receiving the help needed to support their career advancement. Creating Division and Scarcity Instead of Solidarity In addition to creating workplace isolation, the Model Minority Myth has long been used as a tool of racial division, reinforcing predetermined narratives that serve to uphold White dominance while pitting marginalized communities against one another. Like many leaders seeking to inspire their teams, Bea shared her personal story at work, describing how her hardships helped her connect with the Black and Latinx students her organization served. However, her colleagues later gave her critical feedback, expressing that her story made the staff uncomfortable. Reflecting on her positionality, Bea wondered: I get a lot of pushback and feedback. It’s like people don’t want to hear about an Asian person’s suffering… The identities I share with students are sometimes invalidated, brushed aside, whitewashed, or whatever you want to call it. It’s like they want to erase that part because that doesn’t fit the narrative. Rebecca recalled a similar experience in her team as they were working on a grant proposal for a new program initiative. Although Rebecca did most of the work, her director pushed her to list her Black colleague’s name as the author, removing her own name and justifying the decision as a strategic move to strengthen the application. However, despite removing Rebecca’s name from 100 the proposal, the director still wanted her to serve as the program coordinator, managing its implementation behind the scenes. These moments of tension are deeply complex and nuanced, highlighting how racialized narratives ultimately are shaped by and in service of Whiteness. The purpose of elevating these examples is not to resolve this complexity but to emphasize how these dynamics reflect a broader system deliberately constructed to reinforce racial divisions and artificial hierarchies, complicating efforts to build solidarity across communities of color. In this context, the tensions that arise between communities of color are often symptoms of White supremacy culture that limits opportunities and resources, rather than reflect any inherent conflict between groups themselves. The insidious message implicit in Bea and Rebecca’s examples is that there is only enough room for one group’s story. These examples reflect a larger struggle for visibility and validation in professional spaces, where opportunities for recognition and leadership are limited and can feel scarce. This scarcity is not accidental. It is a byproduct of systemic structures that have historically limited opportunities for communities of color, forcing them into competition rather than collaboration. As one group attempts to add nuance and complexity to the narrative, the underlying belief is that it detracts from the others, making it difficult to build deeper connection and shared solidarity between marginalized communities. Ultimately, the division imposed by the Model Minority Myth hinders the career advancement of Asian American FGIPs by limiting how authentically they can connect with or contribute to the missions of their K–12 education organizations. Despite their immigration stories and ties to the American Dream, they are treated like outsiders to a purpose that feels deeply personal to them. Additionally, this division hinders their ability to build relationships with other first-generation professionals of color—potential 101 allies who could provide mentorship, solidarity, and collective empowerment in navigating shared challenges. The Intersectionality of Race and Gender When examining narratives at the intersection of multiple identities, the constraints of social and cultural expectations can feel even more restrictive. Study participants, who selfidentified as either a man or woman, described unique stereotypes and thus distinct workplace challenges based on their gender. Seven out of ten women (70%) noted that societal expectations portray Asian women as meek and docile. Like the small privileges afforded by the Model Minority Myth, this stereotype can support career advancement in specific contexts. When navigating a difficult conversation at work, Sora reflected on how the stereotype could be used to her advantage, explaining, “If I am confrontational, I’m doing it in a way that’s not perceived as aggressive or threatening. There are ways that I can give people feedback that wouldn’t be taken the same way if I were a different identity.” However, most of the stories highlighted the challenges of Asian women being typecast as submissive. Several women shared that the stereotype made them more vulnerable to mistreatment because perpetrators assumed that they would not push back. Anna recounted an incident where a male supervisor, flexing his authority, scapegoated her in a challenging situation at work. She linked the incident to her identities, saying: I knew in my heart I didn’t do anything wrong…. I think also being Vietnamese American, the fact that I wasn’t born here, that I was raised to not make a scene. They were thinking, “Oh, she’s passive. Asian women are passive.” Seven women out of ten (70%) described being underestimated and infantilized, with fellow educators and community members making well-intentioned or snarky comments doubting their 102 ability to manage a classroom or lead a team effectively. Adding further complexity, gender expectations were also reinforced by participants’ respective ethnic communities. In Maya’s community organizing work, she initially faced resistance from community elders, who expected her to engage with them according to their cultural hierarchy. Resisting the stereotype of submissive Asian women also came with consequences. Rebecca, who did not fit into the mold, described herself saying, “I totally was a failed Asian, especially a failed Asian woman. I had really crappy handwriting. I failed at math… I swore a lot, and I got into a lot of fights.” During her school years, Rebecca noticed the stark difference in how she was treated compared to her older sister, who conformed more closely with the Model Minority stereotype. When her teachers first met Rebecca, they expected her to behave like her older sister and initially seated her at the front of the class. However, as they grew more familiar with Rebecca’s boisterous, extroverted personality, she was gradually moved further and further away to the back of the classroom. As a teacher, Rebecca was frequently compared to a fellow Asian American woman colleague, who was labeled the “good” one. Rebecca observed how much more easily her colleague built social capital amongst their peers and advanced her ideas, largely because her behavior aligned more closely with societal expectations of how Asian women are “supposed” to act. For male Asian American FGIPs, their gender identity was not a significant source of social and cultural constraints. However, four out of seven (57%) discussed the unique experience of being the “only” amongst two already underrepresented groups: men working in K–12 education and Asians working in K–12 education. Kevin described it by saying, “It definitely makes me stand out. There’s no way around that. Even in my department of 22 English teachers, I think five of us are male, and only one of us is Asian. That’s me.” In many ways, 103 Kevin viewed his identity as an asset that supported his career advancement, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the pandemic presented many personal challenges related to his Asian identity, he noticed that school leaders increasingly sought his input on strengthening and diversifying the curriculum. As a result, he was able to influence key changes to various courses in his English department. In Kevin’s example, standing out gave him visibility at work, where he could make a meaningful contribution unique to his identity. The experience of being the “only” became increasingly unsettling for participants as they progressed into more senior leadership roles. As a high school teacher, Leo was accustomed to being one of the few Asian American men in his building. However, when he became union president for his district, he was struck by how rare it was for someone like him to hold such a position. At a statewide union conference, representing hundreds of school districts and charter schools, Leo was one of only two Asian men in the entire room. Nathan described a similar experience after progressing from being a teacher to a district leader to an entrepreneur seeking funding for his organization. He elaborated, “It’s hard to be understood constantly as an aberration. On a good day, it makes you resolute to continue doing what you’re doing. But on a bad day, you’re like, ‘Why am I swimming so hard upstream?’” This sense of isolation, compounded by the intersection of race and gender, often left participants questioning their belonging in the broader K–12 education landscape. The disparate experiences between men and women within the Asian American FGIP community also illustrate intersectionality’s relationship with power. Although they share the same Asian American FGIP identity, women and femmes face more restrictive cultural and social expectations that limit how they are permitted to behave, speak, think, and navigate the world. These gendered constraints often reinforce patriarchal norms, leaving women more 104 vulnerable to scrutiny and marginalization in professional and personal spaces. Because men have more proximity to power, male Asian American FGIP experiences were not as strictly bound by gender expectations. Despite this relative privilege, male Asian American FGIPs still encountered feelings of isolation, stemming from other intersecting marginalized identities, such as their immigrant status or racial identity as Asian Americans. This further illustrates how power and privilege shape individual experiences differently, even within the same racial or cultural group, based on the convergence of race, gender, and other social identities. The Intersectionality of Race and Regionality The region of the United States, combined with the diversity of their immediate community, also influenced how Asian Americans were defined by the Model Minority Myth and the extent to which these expectations shaped their career advancement. After Pauk and her family immigrated from Burma, they settled in a predominantly Asian community in California. When asked which aspects of her identity most impacted her career journey, Pauk explained that her Asian identity had a neutral effect, neither supporting nor hindering her opportunities for career advancement. Jason, who was born and raised in a racially diverse California community, grew up alongside people from various ethnic backgrounds. While he was aware about the Model Minority Myth, he did not fully grasp how strongly it influenced others’ expectations of him until he moved to the Northeastern region of the United States. When probed about the experience, Jason elaborated: Particularly talking about K–12 education, the “box” is the high-achieving Asian kid. Studies hard, good at math, plays musical instruments. Works twice as hard. The immigrant mentality. Went to good colleges. Basically will work themselves to the bone to get whatever it is you need to get done…. I had a faint awareness that that box existed. 105 I had no idea until I went to college that it is the predominant box for national discourse. Because, for me, there were many Asian kids. Most of whom didn’t fit into that box. Jason wondered if his career trajectory might have been different had he conformed more to the “box” of Asian American expectations, but he emphasized that meeting others’ expectations was never something he prioritized. In contrast, Nathan and Bea, who identified regionally and culturally as Southerners, experienced some pushback from others who questioned their ability to claim that identity, as it did not align with conventional perceptions of Asian Americans. Nathan explained: I think it is hard for people to actually unpack the fact that I am from the South and that I also identify with being from the South. That doesn’t make sense, right? These things don’t fit together. So, you’re constantly hard to understand, hard for people to make sense of you. At the same time, the ability to push against people’s [expectations] and when you have more facets than they’re used to processing, that’s a useful disequilibrium. What Nathan suggested about the “useful disequilibrium” is the importance of sharing diverse stories about Asian American FGIPs and, more broadly, historically marginalized communities. While Asian American FGIPs hold multiple, complex identities that shape their career development journeys, their stories are often flattened into a singular experience defined by the rigid walls of the Model Minority Myth and reinforced implicitly or explicitly by the people around them. These stories also raise questions about why the Asian American identity feels particularly salient in shaping social and cultural expectations, especially given the multiple other identities participants navigate. One possible explanation is that Asians are more visibly racialized, which means that others tend to project assumptions and stereotypes onto them based on their perceived racial identity. This perception can lead to a reinforced socialization loop that 106 impacts how Asian American FGIPs are treated and understood in various social and professional contexts, making their racial identity a significant part of their lived experiences. A Limited Definition of Leadership Simultaneously, the white-collar workplace implicitly espouses a single, narrow view of what leadership should look like, one that often is not inclusive of Asian American FGIPs’ backgrounds and strengths. Early in his career, Peter’s background was seen as an asset because it helped him connect more authentically with the students he worked with. However, as he advanced in his career, Peter felt increasing pressure to conform to a more rigid, conventional idea of leadership, limiting his ability to lead in a way that felt true to himself. He described: As I got into more senior level roles. I remember getting feedback for looking, dressing, and speaking a certain way…. As I interview for roles, I have to be a little more conscious about how I want to show up. There’s a part of me that also doesn’t want to code switch. There’s a piece of authenticity that I appreciate, that I want to hold on to. Although participants came from a wide range of professional backgrounds, they were remarkably consistent in describing the physical traits the workplace associated with leadership, such as being “polished,” “clean cut,” and “well-manicured.” However, many participants struggled to define the exact mannerisms, characteristics, or behaviors they linked to leadership, so they opted to share examples to illustrate their experiences instead. Three participants, for instance, evoked the image of an executive director charismatically engaging with a board member or a high net-worth donor. Others compared leadership to being an outspoken politician or diplomat, skillfully navigating relationships through the power of persuasion. In some cases, leadership expectations were explicitly defined for them by pointing to an example. While training to become a school leader, Chloe’s supervisor sent her to observe 107 leaders she considered highly effective. Chloe recalled, “Most of them were men, and none were Asian.” In another example, Kevin observed that his school leaders continually tapped the same White women to lead new initiatives. As SJ’s career progressed into a more executive position, a C-suite leader pulled her aside with well-meaning advice that SJ could “really benefit from building your capital B ‘Brand’ versus your little b ‘brand’.” SJ was taken aback by the interaction and wondered: I have a brand. I developed some confidence in that brand, and it feels very unique and authentic to me. And now the question I have is whether you choose to see that.… So is it really about me? Or is it really about the conditions of this organization that chooses to see some people as more visible leaders than others? Whether real or perceived, these experiences highlight how workplace leadership is often defined in limiting ways, leaving many Asian American FGIPs feeling excluded and questioning whether their authentic selves align with this narrow definition. Create Your Own Definition of Leadership To navigate these challenges to career advancement, seven participants emphasized the importance of defining leadership on their own terms. Maya, for instance, advised starting with a mindset focused on taking ownership of one’s own work, value, and contributions. When asked to share a career peak, she described a breakthrough moment while supervising a team with significant differences in age, race, and gender. After initially grappling with her teammates’ expectations of her leadership, Maya eventually embraced her own leadership style, saying: Unapologetically, I am who I am. You value me. You brought me into these spaces to do X, Y, and Z… I’ll do it respectfully. I’ll do it in a manner that will build team and culture. But I can’t continue to be appeasing all the time. 108 Maya also noted that instead of seeing authenticity and workplace success as inherently in conflict with one another, leading with authenticity can actually enhance the work and elevate its overall quality. In other participant examples, a tension with authenticity can indicate the need for a professional change. Katie, for instance, shared an experience in a previous role where her wellmeaning supervisor advised her to proactively connect with the senior vice president by setting up meetings or proactively emailing progress reports to enhance her career growth. Initially hesitant, Katie questioned whether the issue lay within herself—was she struggling due to her introverted nature or reluctance to self-advocate? However, after transitioning into her current role as a nonprofit leader, Katie realized that she excelled at advocating for others and building connections when she was grounded in meaningful work. She describes: It’s easy for me, and it doesn’t feel inauthentic to send an email to a donor to say, “You should listen to our student’s speech from the gala. I think you’d really love to hear what he had to say about his wonderful experience.” … It might feel uncomfortable. I still have these moments because I’m still introverted, but I’m going to show up to these events, and I don’t know a soul in this room, but we’re going to talk. I’m going to figure out how to make a connection. When Katie found a role where she was able to connect authentically with the purpose behind the work, she embraced new facets of her leadership that ultimately supported her career advancement. Professional changes do not always require leaving an organization or field entirely. In Leo’s case, cultivating deep self-awareness and drawing on his identities to bolster his confidence helped him navigate career advancement challenges. Leo opened up about his 109 internal struggle throughout his career with whether he needed to adopt a more “aggressive” approach to advance his ideas at work. He often found himself questioning whether pushing harder was the only way to be heard and respected, noting, “In other words, the default aggressive culture is considered the ‘right’ way to do things.” Leo’s words revealed the pressure to conform to a more assertive style of communication that did not feel entirely authentic to him. A turning point came when he began working with diverse stakeholder groups, many of whom were historically and politically seen as holding opposing viewpoints. I was engaging in all these different views of people. It was defenders of the city versus the privatizers, and I was straddling both. And I think a lot of that was my background and how I was raised. The community I grew up in was the most diverse code in the United States, so I knew everyone has their own story. It was that “listen first” mentality. Leo’s authentic strengths uniquely positioned him to succeed because they existed outside of the workplace’s narrow definitions of leadership. Instead of taking command, Leo leaned into listening first and leveraged his lived experience of navigating multiple spaces and cultures to help his stakeholder groups understand each other’s perspectives. Reflecting on his experiences, Leo saw potential for new kinds of leadership models, saying, “I wonder if people are aching for something different. One that brings together perspectives and sees both sides instead of trying to be the loudest in the room.” Perspectives like those of Maya, Katie, and Leo highlight that there is no one “right” way to lead. Advancing the careers of first-generation professionals requires cultivating and nurturing their unique leadership styles while recognizing that growth is a continuous process for everyone. Light the Path for Others to Follow 110 In addition to creating their own definition of leadership, five out of 17 (30%) participants also named the importance of embracing their leader role by actively cultivating a culture that values diverse skills and perspectives. When reflecting on her own career journey, Sora acknowledged that advancing into senior leadership roles gave her more influence to shape decisions that ultimately affected the extent to which people felt seen, valued, and heard. Sora emphasizes that leaders must “think about the decisions and how we make them,” adding, “I really try to center the people who are going to be impacted by the decision and then create the systems that ensure that [culture] is happening.” Greg expands on Sora’s point by emphasizing the need to translate decisions into systems that can kindle new definitions of leadership within an organization. When he began making hiring decisions, Greg intentionally built and cultivated a diverse talent pool to model the positive changes he wished he had seen earlier in his career. As a school leader, Emily is committed to offering the same mentorship she once received, helping teachers define and pursue a career advancement path that inspires and motivates them. To Emily, leadership means “to pay it forward. You may not see it now. You may see it years from now, but how can I help you forward?” These examples collectively demonstrate the importance of diverse leadership models in organizations, both for their individual contributions and their ability to shape the surrounding conditions that can light a path for other diverse perspectives to follow. This insight is particularly relevant for leaders with multiple marginalized intersecting identities, such as Asian American FGIPs, who can recognize unique strengths and talents beyond the dominant culture. Finding 4: Transforming Cultural Tensions into Opportunities for Self-Advocacy Throughout the 17 interviews, participants consistently described experiencing cultural tensions between their personal backgrounds and the unspoken yet deeply ingrained workplace 111 norms within their organizations. These tensions spanned all stages of participants’ career journeys. However, the interview protocol focused specifically on career advancement with participants ranging in age from 40 to 60, which served as a proxy for professional experience in lieu of formal titles. Thus, participants’ stories centered around the workplace cultural tensions arising from definitions of success in early career development versus the skills necessary for advancement into senior roles. Several participants noted that the models of workplace success they had learned from their parents and caregivers no longer applied in these new professional contexts as they shifted from early career to mid-to-senior career. Although participants broadly referred to the changes they made to support career advancement as “self-advocacy,” two distinct themes emerged that define this concept more specifically. The first theme was about learning to advocate for their ideas within a network—moving from relying solely on individual hard work to strategically promoting their ideas and contributions. The second theme involved advocating for their own needs and aspirations—shifting from a deferential communication style to a more direct, assertive approach to ask for what they wanted in the workplace. Together, these shifts demonstrate how participants navigated career advancement leveraging self-advocacy, transitioning from initial cultural confusion and frustration to developing a more nuanced workplace cultural competence. Shifting from Hard Work Ethic to Strategic Networking The first shift participants made to support their career advancement was expanding their view of workplace success. They moved beyond relying solely on a strong work ethic to recognizing the importance of self-advocacy through strategic networking, which allowed them to effectively promote and advance their ideas. Fifty-three percent of participants explicitly described believing that success at work was determined by doing good work. Many referred to 112 this mindset as “putting your head down” or “letting the work speak for itself.” While the specific sources of this belief varied among participants, they consistently linked it to their cultural background and upbringing. As working class Asian immigrants, David’s family grew up with low levels of trust in others outside of his community, so turning inwards and keeping a low profile was a way to survive. Similarly, when Leo accepted a more prominent and public role in his school district, his mother’s first reaction was one of fear. Having fled a communist government to immigrate to the United States, her advice to Leo was, “Don’t put yourself out there because then the government is going to watch you.” Nathan illustrated how his upbringing shaped his beliefs about leadership and workplace success by saying: The natural leadership instincts that I had at that time relate to my family narratives about work. It was to keep your head down and just be hard working. That’s what leadership is. That’s what work is…. And so I approached leadership in that context as a designer and an engineer, almost like if I can create the right processes and the right systems and the right frames, then things will get better. Underlying these beliefs is the assumption that success can be achieved through individual efforts within the broader organization. While this holds true for entry level roles where people are acting as individual contributors, it increasingly comes in tension at senior level roles. At these higher levels, workplace success relies not only on personal output but also on managing teams and fostering cross-functional collaboration across departments. In the white-collar workplace, advocating for one’s ideas with other leaders and bringing visibility to one’s contributions are essential skills for progressing work through the complex web of competing organizational priorities. However, these skills often came in direct conflict with the cultural norms and values of Asian American FGIPs. Their word choices alone, 113 referring to such skills as “self-promotion,” “bragging,” “playing the game,” and “loud,” revealed participants’ general discomfort and distaste towards the shift required at more senior levels. From participants’ point of view, many examples of workplace self-advocacy reinforced the belief that this crucial skill set was incompatible with their authentic leadership style. For instance, Leo played a key role in forming an important partnership, leveraging a prior relationship and managing all the necessary steps to finalize it. However, a colleague who had a much smaller role in the process received much of the credit by promoting the project in meetings with leadership. To Leo’s surprise, this colleague was invited to future leadership meetings and became associated with the project's success. Despite the work itself being completed by Leo, he observed that “the louder voice wins because they seem more confident.” Emily articulated her inner conflict with the cultural tensions between home and the workplace by saying: I think culturally, Asian American people do not like to brag. We let other people brag about us…. I think that that’s pretty typical of a lot of Asian families. And so, to selfpromote and to self-advocate, it’s really hard because that’s not what you’re used to. I think humility and being humble is something that is very important in most Asian families. So unfortunately, living in a Western society, you do have to do that, and that was a hard lesson to learn. Leo reinforces Emily’s point by highlighting that the cultural value of humility emphasizes considering others and listening to their perspectives, rather than assuming one's own viewpoint is correct. Ironically, the cultural humility and focus on individual contributions can create a perception that Asian American FGIPs lack the self-advocacy skills to advance their ideas across multiple stakeholder groups, which can ultimately hinder their career advancement. This 114 perception can also lead to missed leadership opportunities, as the ability to bring visibility to one’s contribution and leverage one’s personal brand are key to advancement in the white-collar workplace. Beyond showcasing one’s work, success at the senior-most levels of the workplace hinges on strategic networking. The key turning point comes from effectively self-advocating to those with decision-making power and influence. However, making this practice a reality is problematic when the people with this decision-making power do not share the diverse identities of Asian American FGIPs or implicitly project their beliefs on the “right” way to build strategic relationships. As David realized the importance of networking on his career development journey, he felt increasing pressure to join after-hour work events and participate in drinking alcohol with his colleagues and supervisor in order to advance. Kevin shared a similar experience with a school administrator, relaying: [I worked for an] administrator who really enjoyed being well-liked. It was common knowledge that he went out to drinks with staff members after work. At that point, I was so wrapped up in doing well in the classroom that I did not have time or wanted to do any of that. I thought I was making a good impression. Looking back, I didn’t know how to play the game. It just probably came off as: (1) I was not a team player. (2) I did not become friends with him, so I was not a part of that staff culture. In both David and Kevin’s cases, the challenge was that a single individual wielded significant influence over their career advancement opportunities but was assessing them based on perceived competencies that were unrelated to their actual job responsibilities. Reflecting on his time leading a school district, Nathan wondered if he could have affected change at a higher level if he self-advocated to the right decision-maker, but he ultimately added, “That’s the 115 challenge, right? When do you stop having integrity? When do you feel like you’re just trying to keep your job instead of doing your job?” As participants astutely pointed out, merely conforming to white-collar workplace norms for career advancement falls short of the broader goal of achieving the ideals possible through reimagining the American Dream all together. Instead, as expert cultural navigators, FGIPs are uniquely positioned to both navigate current workplace norms and disrupt them in a way that creates more opportunity for others to ascend the career ladder. Reframe Self-Advocacy to Align More Authentically Addressing these barriers to career advancement requires a delicate balance between cultivating authentic cultural values while learning new strategies for self-advocacy that align with one’s identity. Many participants reframed self-advocacy from “self-promotion” to leveraging an authentic leadership strength, which helped them overcome initial discomfort. For example, Leo leaned into his “listen first” approach by seeking feedback from his manager on a new plan, using this as a way to bring visibility to his work. During interviews, Emily reframed self-promotion as “offering context,” using her empathy to consider the interviewer’s experience. She explained, “I realized that they don’t know everything about you, so how are you offering them context into who you are?” When Kevin led his peers through the coaching team, he reframed leadership and self-advocacy as a collaborative effort, a trait that built enduring trust and respect with his colleagues. He reflected, “I think my colleagues sense that I really am humble and genuinely there to learn from them.” Instead of his humility being seen as a leadership liability, Kevin found ways to position his cultural strength to support his ultimate goal of strengthening classroom instruction at his school. Similarly, Kevin found it easy to recognize that different people have unique communication styles and underlying motivations. 116 When it came to effectively self-advocating to leaders with decision-making power, Kevin learned how to align his message with their interests and to start from a place of “giving people in any situation the benefit of the doubt.” He explained: First, remember that maybe they have not considered other possibilities or how their decisions might impact certain people. I communicate with them in a way that whatever that I need, it’s not just for me. It’s for a bigger picture. I need to somehow plant the seed so that they will get something out of it. That is a part of playing the game. I’m sure there are people who say, “I’m not going to play that game, and I will just do whatever works for me.” And that’s cool. But just in my limited experience, those same people are the ones who often don’t get what they want in their career or who are often the most unhappy because they haven’t figured that out. In another example, networking became easier for Jason when he realized, “It’s not just giving out your business card. It’s real, meaningful relationship building. Not around your achievements, and not around your resume, but around your stories and why you do this work.” Even after demonstrating significant growth and improvement in leveraging self-advocacy skills in the workplace, six participants admitted they still felt uncomfortable and unnatural. This insight reveals that stepping outside of one’s comfort zone is inherently challenging, but discomfort alone should not stop someone from trying and adapting new practices to advance their career. Adapting Workplace Communication from Deference to Directness The second shift participants made to support their career advancement involved adapting their deferential communication style to a more direct and assertive approach, enabling them to advocate for their needs and aspirations in the workplace. Sixty-four percent of participants 117 described Asian communication styles as “indirect,” “non-assertive,” and “non-confrontational,” which created significant challenges in environments where directness and assertiveness are often equated with leadership potential. While responses varied across participants, they consistently attributed their communication style to their cultural upbringing and backgrounds. For four participants, being an English language learner posed a significant barrier to effective workplace communication, as they had to navigate both cultural differences and language translation simultaneously. For others, the cultural expectation of obedience and respect for authority shaped their default communication style, making deference their natural approach. For example, Pauk engaged in deep self-reflection when she realized how much her teaching style was influenced by her own upbringing, saying: As I started my profession, I realized that being able to express your ideas and yourself is a really important skill. Growing up, we were never taught that value. As a young kid in an Asian family, you don’t have a place to speak. It’s the adults who speak, and you listen as a kid. But that’s really different from what we teach young children today, which is to be more expressive, and give them the space to share their ideas and really encourage them to express their thoughts. The reasons for deference in Asian communication norms and expectations are complex and diverse. One potential reason is that clear social hierarchies dictate the roles that individuals play in their community. In such contexts, self-advocacy is often not the primary means of addressing one's needs. Instead, individuals rely on established roles and relationships to ensure their wellbeing. This contrasts sharply with the American white-collar workplace, where the value of rugged individualism places an emphasis on self-advocacy as the key to securing resources and advancement. This cultural tension was particularly evident for participants like Peter, who did 118 not grow up witnessing his immigrant, working-class parents practice self-advocacy in their jobs. While culture influenced their communication style, Peter attributed his parents’ lack of selfadvocacy more to their workplace conditions than to their potential, pointing out that they worked in roles that lacked worker protections. Without a role model for effective self-advocacy, Peter found navigating the workplace as a first-generation professional to be as challenging as navigating college as a first-generation student. He noticed that subtle social dynamics, such as proactively seeking advancement opportunities and expressing interest to leaders, were initially inaccessible to him until they became part of his own lived experience. He shared: That’s been part of the leadership journey for me—speaking out and speaking up and advocating for yourself. I’m generalizing here about the AAPI experience, but I think that our communities can be a lot less ready to express that they want to go for that new opportunity. For cultural reasons and for a number of different things. We tend to orient more towards, “We hope we get it. It’d be nice.” But not actually just saying, “I want to go for this. It feels like a little bit of a reach, but what’s the worst that can happen? Let me give it a shot.” Peter’s example highlights a critical assumption that may hinder the career advancement of Asian American FGIPs—the belief that others are already aware of their contributions, will identify the best opportunities to support their growth, and will share them at the opportune moment. In complex organizational systems with competing priorities, effective self-advocacy requires clear, direct communication with decision-makers to secure the resources and advancement opportunities necessary for success. Simultaneously, decision-makers often operate under the assumption that individuals will tell them what they need to know. In this context, a lack of communication may be misinterpreted as an indication that everything is proceeding 119 smoothly, making it critical that Asian American FGIPs regularly voice their concerns, needs, and interests to decision-makers as part of their professional practice. As with any practice that implicitly prescribes the “right” way of doing things, workplace communication norms warrant critical evaluation before applying them in practice. For instance, Chloe struggled with the feedback that her communication style was less effective, especially when coupled with the push to engage in more “code-switching” at work. She wondered: Do people think I’m a crappy communicator because of the way that I was raised? It’s just not in my culture to tell somebody straight up, “This work is terrible. Do it again.” I would never say that to somebody. But if I don’t say that, then I’m told, “You’re beating around the bush.” There’s something to be said for strong communication skills and clarity. I totally get that. But I think where it hurts the most is when people tell me that I’m not a strong communicator, but they don’t understand how that feels for me to do that. The amount of code switching that I need to do for you. It’s for you to have comfort, but I don’t get the right to comfort. Chloe challenged the notion that her communication style was ineffective simply because she was discerning about what she said, using an example to show how directness can sometimes be unnecessarily harsh. Despite the workplace’s emphasis on direct and assertive communication, it is also ironically filled with unwritten rules about what employees are allowed to be direct about and what they are not. Jason highlighted several examples of these unwritten rules, such as the avoidance of addressing the saviorism mentality that permeates philanthropy and the limited authentic connection between nonprofit staff to the communities they serve. He also observed that “it’s rare to see someone contradict the CEO in a public forum.” These criticisms are warranted, illustrating the role of power in dictating what is considered acceptable and 120 unacceptable communication in the workplace. This places FGIPs in the challenging position of balancing the adoption of new practices that foster growth and career advancement with the need to discard those that disempower or undermine their cultural identity. Confidence Grows with Practice Striking the right balance of growth and authenticity takes time, practice, and thoughtful individual reflection. Although Kevin initially struggled with navigating the intricate social and cultural dynamics of the white-collar workplace, he found ways to test different communication approaches over the years, adding, “I’ve been learning how to choose battles and tactfully address my concerns with authority figures. It’s been a very long journey, but it’s built my confidence to slowly try little bits and pieces of speaking up when I can.” Kevin’s example highlights that significant progress can stem from the accumulation of many small steps forward, instead of one major leap. In her career peak example, Katie applied to lead a team in a functional area where she had the least amount of direct experience, despite having many years of professional expertise in other areas. She started by understanding what was most important to the key stakeholders involved in the application process, engaging the hiring manager, the outgoing team leader, and current team members. As she got to know the team, Katie noticed that those with more direct experience were hesitant to take the bold actions necessary to move the team’s work forward. She reflected: I was able to let go of this imposter syndrome that I only can be good at this if I’ve done it for years. I’m just going to go out there, practice my pitch, get better at it, and feel a lot more comfortable. That’s what did it for me. Just pushing myself to be out there and doing the thing that feels terrifying and then feeling better at it because I did it. 121 Peter echoed a reflection similar to Katie’s, emphasizing that confidence or deep expertise does not need to precede taking meaningful action towards new practices. He added, “You’re going to face the fear of rejection. The fear of being told no or being told that the opportunity isn’t for you. But hearing that can also help you go and move on.” Peter’s insight underscores the importance of framing future career advancement opportunities from an abundance mindset, rejecting the scarcity-bound notion that Asian American FGIPs can only succeed through a single pathway and encouraging a broader, more flexible approach to growth. Direct communication can also be reframed as the process of unearthing and testing one’s assumptions, rather than viewing it as confrontation. Growing up in a home where deferential communication was emphasized, David came to recognize the potential benefits of self-advocacy in the workplace. He shared, “It made me realize there’s a lot of assumptions that I make…. Sometimes I just assume that people will understand or know what I’m doing or saying, and that’s definitely not the case most of the time.” Similarly, in her career valley example, Chloe faced growing tensions with a leader who had once been an important mentor, leaving her feeling trapped and stagnant in her role. After grappling with how to handle this situation, Chloe engaged her manager in an honest and direct conversation about her desire to seek new job opportunities. She recalled, “It was actually a turning point for us because I don’t think she realized how bad things had gotten. She was so stressed by holding so many other things that our relationship was on the back burner.” The conversation revealed the hidden assumptions underneath Chloe’s career valley. One person believed their relationship was stable while the other felt it had deteriorated. Through her self-advocacy, Chloe was able to gather new perspectives on the situation, build empathy for the challenges that her manager was facing, and help both parties re-invest in their relationship. This experience bolstered Chloe’s confidence in 122 her ability to blend self-advocacy alongside her authentic strengths in relationship building and empathy, demonstrating that the adoption of new practices can exist in harmony with one’s cultural values. Finding 5: The Power of One When reflecting on their intersecting identities, 100% of participants identified at least one person who held a deeply influential role in their career advancement journeys. These individuals played a wide array of roles in Asian American FGIP’s lives, from parents, partners, spouses, managers, mentors, and sponsors. Some of these relationships were built in a professional context while others were personal. Several relationships spanned over years while others were crucial for a particular chapter in a participant’s life. While several named that sharing identity markers, such as gender and ethnicity, could be particularly meaningful, many also described relationships held across lines of difference that were equally powerful. Individuals played a critical role in supporting FGIP career advancement in three key areas: creating the conditions to succeed, nurturing authentic leadership strengths through cultural competence, and building social and navigational capital that opened doors of opportunity and access to resources. Whether their organizations provided formal mentorship structures or not, participants learned how to cultivate intentional relationships to support their career advancement. Creating the Conditions to Succeed While Asian American FGIPs found it challenging to grow up with parents and caregivers who could not provide practical guidance on navigating U.S. educational and professional systems, many also credited them for creating the supportive conditions necessary for their success. Eleven out of 17 participants (65%) talked about how their parents and 123 caregivers instilled the importance of education in their household from an early age. Many parents and caregivers showed their support by shouldering the family’s financial burdens so that their children could focus on their schoolwork. Leo recalled, “Money was a big stressor. I remember as a kid thinking that I needed to get a job, but my parents always stressed: No, no, no, don’t worry about it. Just concentrate on your studies.” Parents and caregivers also acted as role models for their children, creating archetypes of leadership and blueprints for success that FGIPs would draw on for years to come. The first thing Pauk does when learning how to navigate a new workplace is to build relationships and a supportive community around her, citing her father’s generosity and service-oriented nature as inspiration. Another way that individuals created the conditions for FGIPs to succeed was through practical acts of service and providing stability at home, which enabled them to focus on their career. In her second year as a school principal, Chloe became a mother and had to balance caring for her young children with early morning school duties and the complexities of leading a school. Her parents stepped in, taking on key responsibilities like daycare drop-offs and pickups, which made her role as a school leader possible. Additionally, 88% of participants credited their partners or spouses as essential to their career advancement. When facing major decisions, such as moving to a new city or accepting a job with a significant pay cut, participants and their partners worked as a team, prioritizing each other’s long-term fulfillment and happiness. Spouses and partners also provided vital emotional support, acting as a sounding board for navigating stressful work situations, attending all of their workplace events, and reminding participants of their “why” when they felt lost. While many relationships were largely described as supportive and instrumental in enabling career advancement, participants also grappled with the complexity of these same 124 relationships. For example, although she felt supported by her parents in many ways, Katie also acknowledged the challenges of not feeling deeply known and understood by them in a significant area of her life. She explained: They completely don’t understand what I’m doing. When I was younger, it mattered more what my parents thought about my work and career choices. As much as I would love to have their approval and understanding of my work, I also recognize that my parents and I have different viewpoints. It’s more important that I see the value of it. Several Asian American FGIPs took on extra caregiving responsibilities for their parents, who relied on them as translators and cultural brokers, especially as the FGIPs’ English proficiency and understanding of the U.S. context surpassed that of their parents. Participants described this role reversal between parents and child as emotionally depleting and stressful, adding to the already challenging experience of navigating their educational and professional journeys without sufficient guidance. Acting as cultural brokers and translators for their parents meant that many FGIPs felt an increased burden of responsibility at a young age, often taking on adult roles while still figuring out their own career journeys. Similarly, when making major career decisions with a spouse or partner, participants sometimes had to step back from opportunities or decline job offers in order to prioritize the well-being of their family unit. These decisions, while often made with long-term happiness and stability in mind, could come at the cost of personal ambition or career advancement in the short term. These instances highlight the complexity and nuances of being in relationship with other human beings, where support is not one-sided but reciprocal. Asian American FGIPs’ path to career advancement success was shaped deeply by these interconnected dynamics, where they had to find balance between their own career aspirations and the needs of others. 125 Nurturing Authentic Leadership Strengths All 17 participants mentioned at least one workplace manager or mentor who played a significant role in supporting their career advancement. Some relationships were formalized through a management structure or mentorship program while others were informal relationships that were built organically over time. Participants highlighted the transformative power of these relationships in their careers, often starting with managers or mentors who recognized and cultivated their unique strengths and talents—sometimes even before participants themselves could see their own gifts. When discussing one of the most significant turning points in his career development journey thus far, Peter attributed it to his manager, saying: Her leadership style essentially changed the trajectory of my life and career. Someone who can see you, can look out for you, have your back, who promotes you, allows space for more responsibility. I was able to buy a house because of the career advancement that I had through my manager, and that is a powerful testament to her leadership. What made Peter’s manager special was her ability to build on his strengths while gradually developing his areas for growth in a way that supported, rather than detracted from, his overall leadership potential. With her support and belief in his potential, Peter was able to achieve both economic and social mobility, culminating in the purchase of his first home. While Peter did not explicitly outline the broader conditions that enabled his manager to support his growth, his example implicitly points to the importance of culturally competent managers who draw on diverse leadership models in their approach. For instance, SJ spoke about a White male manager with whom she was able to establish deep trust and psychological safety because he openly encouraged SJ to talk about her identities at work. He supported her in exploring what authentic leadership looked like through the lens of her unique experiences. These examples highlight that 126 the key to a successful manager or mentor relationship is not based on shared identity, but rather on cultural competence and the ability to recognize an individual’s strengths and assets beyond narrow definitions of workplace success. Building Social and Navigational Capital Participants, by nature of their identity as FGIPs, entered the workforce without the established social capital or navigational knowledge needed to access key opportunities and resources to advance their careers. Thus, managers and workplace mentors played a crucial role helping FGIPs build these skills through their guidance and advocacy. When Emily was applying for new school leadership positions, her mentor helped to put her application process into perspective, demystifying the behind-the-scenes factors that influenced how hiring decisions were made. Emily explained: I had an amazing mentor who really coached me through it. She’d break it down for me by telling me what you say and don’t say. She had to also remind me that sometimes, like with any job, it’s really about match. You could look great on paper. You could have interviewed perfectly, but at the end of the day, if it just wasn’t a love connection, then it wasn’t a love connection. My coach was the person with that outside perspective and helped me understand there’s a lot more inner workings of how you get a job and how you don’t get a job. This example illuminates the crucial role that managers play in demystifying the workplace for their employees, especially for populations such as first-generation professionals who are navigating unfamiliar professional environments. By creating transparency around unwritten expectations, making hidden assumptions visible, or providing insight into the behind-the-scenes decision-making processes, managers help to break down the barriers that might otherwise hinder career advancement for FGIPs. While many of these unwritten workplace expectations 127 and assumptions should be critically examined, recognizing and understanding the barriers clearly is often the first step in dismantling them. Participants also emphasized the importance of sponsorship, which they defined as a champion’s willingness to leverage their own social capital to create new opportunities and advocate for them in spaces where they were not present. Sora explained sponsorship by saying, “The key is having strong relationships with people who have decision-making power, either as a hiring manager or supervisor. Someone who can advocate for you, vouch for your work, and build on your good reputation across the organization.” Sora’s definition of sponsorship emphasizes that managers and mentors do not replace the work that FGPs must do to establish their professional credibility, but they act as accelerators and amplifiers that bring visibility to their work and ultimately help them navigate complex organizational systems. For example, when Maya received an exciting fellowship opportunity to accelerate her leadership skills through an external organization, her CEO actively created a pathway for her to continue growing within the company after the program. This included securing her a promotion in both pay and title that aligned with the fellowship’s outcomes. Reflecting on the conditions that allowed her CEO to champion her career, Maya shared: I found people who I admired and aligned with their values. That meant I brought a willingness to do more than what was expected, like giving extra time and showing that I’m committed to them and what they stand for. The reciprocal nature of our relationship and their trust in me led us to work towards becoming more like peers over time. They were sponsoring me, meaning that they were pushing my name and uplifting my skill sets to connect me with new opportunities. 128 Maya’s example underscores the importance of establishing a mentoring relationship grounded in mutual respect and shared values, rather than a transactional exchange of services. Similarly, David’s manager regularly demonstrated that she cared for David as a person by finding connection points beyond the workplace, such as their shared identities as parents of young children. One of her standout traits was her flexibility and adaptability in how work was done, including her approach to supporting David’s career growth and advancement. In addition to her own management support, David’s manager hired an external leadership coach to help him with strengthening his decision-making skills and offering guidance on how to build internal networks by advancing his ideas to different stakeholders. By providing the resources to accelerate his career growth, she also invested in developing David’s long-term leadership potential. As a result, David became more motivated at work because he saw real opportunities to grow within his organization, and he felt comfortable sharing creative and innovative ideas with his manager. Instead of getting lost in the ambiguity of white-collar workplace dynamics, David was equipped with the social and navigational skills needed to contribute meaningfully. Cultivate Intentional Relationships FGIPs need not wait for mentorship opportunities to come to them. They can take a proactive approach in seeking out relationships that support their personal and career growth. Participants emphasized that mentoring relationships can be established outside of a formal workplace program or structure. For FGIPs who are unsure where to begin, Chloe suggested starting with leveraging existing relationships to seek and gather other’s perspectives without the pressure of formalizing an official mentoring relationship. Chloe also recommended a flexible and open approach to defining mentorship, explaining: 129 There are different kinds of mentors that you can have. You can have a mentor who is more like a friend. I’m gonna let them see all my ugly cries. Then, there’s the mentor who is one step ahead career wise and can help you navigate the best moves to make within your organization. Then, find someone who’s 10 years ahead, who can also give you a longer-term perspective and help you realize that this current challenge you’re facing now isn’t going to break you. Anna echoed Chloe’s sentiments and shared that her primary workplace support system is a coworker who is going through the same journey with her. She affirmed, “You don’t need a lot of people. Just a couple who are supportive and kind. Just surround yourself with wonderful people who you can rely on as your cheerleaders.” By identifying potential mentors or cheerleaders and reaching out to build a meaningful connection based on shared values and professional goals, FGPs can create their own pathways to the American Dream. Not only does this proactive stance empower FGPs to take ownership of their career development journeys, but it also helps them build their own village of champions and supporters. Finding 6: The Power of a Village The final finding of the study emphasizes the immense power of a broader community working together to uplift, encourage, and support Asian American FGIPs at each stage of their career development journeys. While the historical and current narrative of the American Dream often glorifies the idea of rugged individualism—the belief that success is achieved through the extraordinary efforts of one—this study tells a different story. All 17 participants shared compelling narratives of how the journey to each career peak and through each valley was intricately interwoven with the collective efforts of a village of family, colleagues, mentors, community members, and friends. Similar to mentors, some members of the village came from 130 formal structures, such as faith-based communities, employee resource groups, or fellowship programs. Others emerged organically, both inside and outside the workplace. Since a village is comprised of many individuals, participants described a significant overlap between the ways individuals and the collective supported them. Participants recounted how their community created the conditions for them to succeed, nurtured their authentic leadership strengths, and helped them build the social and navigational capital needed to support their career advancement. Amidst these overlapping themes, two new insights emerged that highlighted the unique value of collective support: (1) validating the challenges and collecting solutioning, and (2) sparking and creating new opportunities. Ultimately, participants learned how to reject the myth of rugged individualism and embrace their village as a beautiful and essential part of their career development journeys. Validating the Challenges and Collective Solutioning A unique way the community supported Asian American FGIPs in navigating challenges to career advancement was by providing a safe space for sharing experiences, validating their frustrations, and collaboratively advising the next course of action. The village also helped participants reflect retrospectively on their experiences so that everyone would be better equipped to navigate similar challenges in the future, strengthening their collective navigational capital. In some cases, participants sought out the collective wisdom of a group. In other cases, participants built their own village by engaging multiple individuals from different contexts. For instance, when SJ was offered a downscoped role that would not advance her career, she turned to a small peer group of women. They listened as SJ shared her application journey and her disappointment with the final offer. The group validated her frustrations and worked together to 131 equip her with strategies to advocate for herself in discussions with the hiring manager. Reflecting on this experience, SJ recalled: It was my friend who kept saying, “That just doesn’t sound right. You shouldn’t take the offer.” The other girl friends were also saying the same thing, so I wanted to decline the offer. But how do I do that? They helped me think through how I can advocate for myself. They also helped me see that I’m only going to grow more resentful and disgruntled at work if I don’t advocate for myself. SJ’s support network not only validated her experiences but also empowered her to act. By drawing on their collective wisdom, they helped SJ channel her frustrations into a direct selfadvocacy conversation with the hiring manager, which ultimately led to the role being rescoped to an executive level position. Seven out of 17 participants (41%) mentioned employee resource groups, or affinity groups, as structured workplace communities that positively supported their career development. Although there are many types of employee resource groups available, all seven participants specifically alluded to groups centered on race and ethnicity. Participants described affinity groups as spaces that created a sense of belonging and celebration of their Asian identity, which was especially meaningful as many were among the few Asian employees on their teams. Beyond fostering belonging, these groups also provided Asian American FGIPs with a safe space to discuss experiences with workplace microaggressions without fear of being dismissed. Unlike overt forms of discrimination, which can be reported to human resources for support, microaggressions are the accumulation of subtle and indirect forms of discrimination, often leaving individuals second-guessing the validity of their experiences. Affinity groups can help individuals access their feelings and experiences by bringing visibility to an otherwise invisible 132 phenomenon. For example, when his school district invested resources into creating its first Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) affinity group, Greg realized that many of his colleagues shared the same challenges in their career advancement journeys. He shared: We have our BIPOC community, and it really brought some things to light. You keep things inside, and you suppress it because it’s just the way it is. Over the last few years, I’ve made some great colleagues who really inspire you because you finally feel like your story is not uncommon. Instead of interpreting these experiences as individual shortcomings, Asian American FGIPs like Greg were better able to recognize the broader system’s role in his career advancement challenges. By sharing experiences of microaggressions and workplace challenges with a community, FGPs can feel more understood and connected, countering the self-doubt and isolation that these experiences can trigger. By validating their experiences, the community fosters collective resilience in the face of challenges, which ultimately empowers Asian American FGIPs to navigate their workplaces with greater confidence. Sparking and Creating New Opportunities Asian American FGIPs’ network of friends, family, mentors, and supporters often inspired new career ideas and opened doors to opportunities along the way. For instance, when Pauk was seeking a career change from engineering to teaching, she was discouraged after learning that she was not accepted into her first-choice graduate program. Just as Pauk began doubting her career change, a church member mentioned a virtual program at a different graduate school. She applied and was accepted, which ultimately led her to get a teaching certification through this program. This anecdote highlights how a community can provide crucial exposure to new ideas, connections, and networks that expand what Asian American 133 FGIPs believe is possible for their futures. Such exposure to new ideas and networks is especially valuable for FGPs, whose access to opportunities is often shaped by the limitations of their own experiences and backgrounds. In addition to building exposure, networks are essential sources of advancement opportunities, particularly in the white-collar workplace setting where relationships with the decision-makers can accelerate one’s career faster than merit alone. Jason confirmed this with his own career experiences by saying: Every place I’ve ever worked was because of a relationship. That was true from basically college to the job I have right now. It was the people who remembered me or that I built a relationship with…. All of those opportunities are a direct result of me being who I am, not necessarily because of what I achieved. Jason’s experience highlights how relationships serve as a bridge to opportunities that might otherwise be out of reach. However, future career prospects for Asian American FGIPs are not limited to the people they already know. For example, when Sora moved to a new city, she leveraged her professional network to make initial local connections. She explained, “Those initial connections are really bearing fruit. I am joining a board now based on a connection that somebody helped me make when I first moved here. There’s just been snowball conversations as I’m getting to know people.” The power of the village is not in the immediate connections, but rather, the vast constellation of relationships that are intricately interconnected and expand to other constellations, creating countless opportunities within one network. Embrace Your Village While the American Dream represents the pinnacle of economic and social mobility, it also places rugged individualism on a pedestal, insinuating that only those with the commitment and dedication to pull themselves up by the bootstraps are deserving of success. However, this 134 study’s findings clarified that success is rarely achieved in isolation. Participants learned how to rewrite their stories by embracing their village as an essential part of their journeys. For example, when reflecting on the strategies and resources that helped her navigate her career challenges, Anna rewrote her definition of courage to include reaching out for the support she needed. She said, “I was proactive and asked for help. I think all of that shaped my career advancement. If you need help, ask. It’s a brave thing to do.” In another example, Sora embraced her village by returning to the relationships that most grounded her to recharge and remind herself of who she was at her best. She advised: Keep the people who have known you a long time close. The people whose opinions you really value because they’ve seen you through multiple phases in your life, not just one. Keep them updated along your journey so that they can continue to validate you and remind you of the things that really matter. Throughout their interviews, participants emphasized that relationships thrive on mutual support and shared growth. Embracing one’s village involves both receiving and offering support, grounded in a belief that success can flow abundantly for all. For instance, when Rebecca found a workplace with a supportive environment and colleagues who genuinely cared, she reciprocated by leveraging her deep expertise in higher education to uplift others. She found passion and joy in helping people pursue their dreams, empowering them to navigate systems that had once hindered her own journey. Lastly, Peter offered an important reminder that true support also included pushing each other through the discomfort of growth and change towards personal transformation. He shared: Support has to go both ways. There are things that I did to build the relationship and the trust of my teammates and colleagues. You have the right to be authentic, and people also 135 have a right to show up as their authentic selves. You work to allow for that flexibility and to push for each other’s growth. The career advancement journeys of Asian American FGIPs illustrate that the American Dream story is still filled with these seeming paradoxes. Success requires the courage to embrace authenticity to challenge the limiting systems that hinder those with marginalized identities. It also requires wisdom and discernment to embrace new practices and expand one’s belief in their own potential. Striving for social and economic mobility is a worthy cause, yet it falls short of realizing the full potential of FGIPs. The American Dream was never crafted with FGPs and other marginalized peoples in mind, yet it continues to inspire hopeful generations with its ideals—the powerful notion that people can exercise self-determination amidst the systems and surrounding conditions shaping their daily lives. While we cannot change its past, our next generation of leaders, including Asian American FGIPs, are called to reimagine the American Dream, expanding its promise to create a future where all can thrive. Summary The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand how the interactions between intersecting identities and surrounding conditions can shape the career advancement journeys of Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals (FGIPs). By framing the study through Kimberlé Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality framework and Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory, the findings unveiled the invisible struggles and triumphs that Asian American FGIPs face as they advance in their careers. Chapter Four first summarized the key demographic characteristics of the study participants and examined how they defined career advancement, emphasizing the paradoxical and personal nature of the journey. Then, Chapter Four explored six key findings that emerged from participant interviews. The first finding 136 emphasized how Asian American FGIPs’ intersecting identities and backgrounds were major sources of inspiration and strength, helping them navigate their career development journeys. The second finding explored participants’ complex relationships with the hustle and hard work ethic that served them in certain aspects of their career development, acknowledging that many are now expanding their beliefs about professional success. In the third finding, Chapter Four examined how the Model Minority Myth created a palpable “box” that hindered their career advancement journey by rigidly defining what is socially acceptable and unacceptable for Asian American FGIPs. The fourth finding highlighted two key cultural transitions that participants had to navigate to support their career advancement: (1) from relying on hard work to using strategic networking, and (2) from deference to direct communication. The final two interconnected findings highlighted the profound influence of both individual and collective support. While a single person can make a pivotal difference, it takes a village to unlock the full life-changing potential of social and economic mobility. 137 Chapter Five: Recommendations This qualitative study aimed to examine how surrounding environmental conditions, shaped by intersecting identities like social class, race, and ethnicity, influenced the career advancement journeys of Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals (FGIPs). As the final chapter of this dissertation, Chapter Five begins by connecting the study’s findings with participants’ experiences, the literature reviewed in Chapter Two, and the conceptual framework. It then discusses three core recommendations for organizations and practitioners: (1) Engage in ongoing reflection to align organizational aspirations with current culture, (2) Expand and invite diverse and inclusive definitions of leadership, and (3) Build a community of support for employees. Chapter Five also addresses the study’s limitations and delimitations as well as making recommendations for future research. Finally, Chapter Five concludes the dissertation study by underscoring the importance of the study. Discussion of Findings The findings of this study addressed three core research questions: 1. How do the intersecting identities of Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals shape their career development journeys? 2. When reflecting on their intersecting identities, what surrounding conditions do Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals attribute to supporting or hindering their career advancement? 3. What strategies and resources do Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals use to navigate the challenges to career advancement? Grounded in Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality framework and Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory, the study’s conceptual framework aimed to build a holistic 138 understanding of what most influenced the career trajectories of FGIPs. The findings converged around six key themes: (a) intersecting identities as sources of career inspiration and strength, (b) the complex relationship with the hustle and hard work ethic, (c) the paradoxical constraints imposed by the Model Minority Myth, (d) transforming cultural tensions into opportunities for self-advocacy, (e) the power of one, and (f) the power of a village. This section of Chapter Five interprets the findings of the study by connecting them to the existing literature and the conceptual framework. Connection to Kimberlé Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality framework The findings of this study reinforce a core tenant of Kimberlé Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality framework—people are complex, multi-faceted beings whose identities are not expressed or understood singularly. When designing the research questions for this study, I initially hypothesized that participants would link distinct parts of their career experiences to specific aspects of their identities. However, the rich qualitative data from all 17 participants highlighted that their identities are deeply interwoven. As participants reflected on the peaks and valleys of their career journeys, many pointed to multiple intersecting identities that felt particularly salient in certain moments. Others referred more broadly to their “backgrounds.” Participants attributed their experiences to a blend of identities that together shaped their perspectives, actions, and meaning making. For example, the challenges of being the “first” in their family to navigate white-collar professional spaces was attributed to participants’ racial identity, immigrant status, working class background, and even gender. Drawing on Crenshaw’s (1989) theoretical framework, these identities are not just additive but interactive. They create unique, dynamic experiences that share both commonality and differences from those of individuals with single marginalized identities. This finding is significant because it emphasizes 139 the power of studying the FGIP population. Their stories reveal distinct challenges and successes while also reflecting broader themes that resonate with many individuals navigating shared social identities. Recognizing FGIPs’ intersecting marginalized identities allows practitioners and organizations to design support systems and policies that address their needs with a more nuanced, inclusive approach. Salience of Visible and Invisible Identities For FGIP participants, identities such as race, immigration background, and social class upbringing created a dynamic interplay that was especially significant in professional settings. Some identities were more salient than others because of their external visibility (i.e., being Asian) while other identities were less visible but deeply influential in shaping their values and career advancement journeys (i.e., being an immigrant, growing up working class). Based on participant interviews, the salience of these identities could shift depending on the context. For example, growing up in a diverse Asian American community in California meant that racial identity was less prominent in shaping how others interacted with participants. This may explain why two participants expressed a neutral view on how their Asian identity shaped their careers advancement opportunities. However, for a participant who later moved across the country to a city with significantly fewer Asian Americans, the effects of the Model Minority Myth and the Perpetual Foreigner stereotype became much more salient, influencing their perception of career advancement challenges. This example highlights how identity becomes most salient in the context of marginalization, as privilege is often assumed or viewed as a universal experience (Crenshaw, 1989). This insight also emphasizes that intersecting identities are not only individually expressed but also externally projected onto individuals by the people around them and reinforced by the powerful social structures in their environment. 140 Shifting Context and Power Dynamics The interactions between these identities, combined with surrounding power dynamics, created both supporting and hindering conditions for their career advancement, depending on the specific context. For example, Bea described how her identities as a woman and a parent strengthened her credibility and empathy in her education career, allowing her to connect more deeply with students, parents, and colleagues. However, in other situations, these same identities became obstacles to career advancement, as stereotypes of Asian women as meek or docile could hinder the perception of their leadership potential in the workplace. This example highlights how intersecting identities can serve as both assets and liabilities, with the surrounding context and prevailing stereotypes influencing how they are perceived in professional spaces. As Crenshaw (1991) emphasized, an either-or approach to identity can risk erasing or oversimplifying the experiences of Asian American FGIPs, who cannot be neatly categorized by any one aspect of their identity. Focusing on a single identity dimension while overlooking others fails to capture the full picture of their lived experiences and a comprehensive understanding of their career advancement challenges. Intersectionality’s true potential as a framework is realized when it not only critically examines broken systems but also fosters the conditions for transformation through deep empathy and understanding (Carbado et al., 2013). Connection Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory In addition to Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality framework, the study’s findings build on Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory, which asserts that human development is shaped by the interactive, reciprocal relationship between individuals and their surrounding environment. In this study, human development refers to the personal and professional growth necessary for career advancement within the K–12 education sector, with a focus on the 141 experiences of Asian American FGIPs. This development occurs through dynamic interactions at various levels of the ecological system, which include the microsystem (i.e., immediate relationships family, peers, and colleagues), the mesosystem (i.e., social networks), and the macrosystem (i.e., broader societal and cultural influences) (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Consistent with the literature reviewed in Chapter Two, the findings indicate that the career advancement of Asian American FGIPs is significantly shaped by the surrounding conditions in these systems. In particular, the microsystem highlights how individual relationships, such as those with family, mentors, and supervisors, directly influenced career advancement trajectories. The mesosystem demonstrates how interactions in a social network affect individuals’ ability to navigate career challenges and access new opportunities. Lastly, the macrosystem reveals the broader societal factors, such as cultural values and pervasive stereotypes, that either support or hinder the professional advancement of these individuals. This discussion further expands on each of the three key levels of the ecological systems below. Microsystem Factors Impacting First-Generation Professionals Bronfenbrenner (1979) posits that the reciprocal, mutual relationship between two individuals are the building blocks of human development. Consistent with current scholarship, the study found that parents, family members, and mentors played a critical role in supporting the career advancement journeys of Asian American FGIPs (Demetriou et al., 2017; DominguezWhitehead et al., 2021; Hirudayaraj & McLean, 2018; Smith, 2023; Tate et al., 2015). A unique finding, however, was the critical role of spouses and life partners as sources of practical and emotional support, which is an area underexplored in the existing literature on FGIPs. This may be because most research focuses on the transition from college to work, a period when participants are less likely to have long-term partnerships (Harlow & Bowman, 2016). 142 In addition to these key relationships, Bronfenbrenner (1979) asserts that roles, or the accepted societal expectations for one’s behaviors based on a sociopolitical label within a culture, can be powerful influences. Therefore, shifts in roles or environments can become significant developmental experiences (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Aligned to the literature, study participants described the transition from their background into the white-collar workplace as both exciting and challenging (Garriott, 2020; Olson, 2014). Participants saw the opportunity to influence meaningful change in the workplace and leverage their strengths, and they also grappled with the limitations of their worldview in the professional setting. Like the mentors who supported FGC students in their academic journeys (Demetriou et al., 2017), workplace mentors and supervisors played a crucial role in nurturing Asian American FGIPs’ authentic leadership strengths and building their social and navigational capital. This study suggests that these individual relationships and role transitions collectively shaped participants’ career development journeys, particularly in their adaptation to new professional settings. The Role of Social Networks (Mesosystem Factors) Impacting First-Generation Professionals Building on Hirudayaraj and McLean’s (2018) findings, participants in this study underscored the importance of “who you know” (p.99), emphasizing the critical role of social networks in creating career advancement opportunities. Bronfenbrenner (1979) also highlights that human development thrives when relationships are mutually beneficial, allowing individuals to model essential skills and experiences for success. In that vein, a key strategy participants used to navigate the challenges to career advancement was to embrace their village, seeking collective wisdom as well as pouring back into the community to foster mutual growth. Although the existing literature addresses the importance of employee resource groups and other structured workplace programs (Almeida et al., 2021; Burwell & Maldonado, 2022), a unique study finding 143 was the role of these communities as safe spaces where participants could share experiences of microaggressions and other workplace challenges. By having their experiences validated and heard, the Asian American FGIPs were better able to build resilience in the face of career advancement challenges. Macrosystem Factors Impacting First-Generation Professionals According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), shifts in belief systems, ideologies, and subcultures represent a distinct ecological transition, signaling a movement from one social setting to another. Participant interviews reveal that Asian American FGIPs often encounter multiple shifts in belief systems and values upon entering the white-collar professional workplace, leading to moments of confusion, cultural tension, and identity-based self-reflection. The white-collar work environment, rooted in middle-class, White-dominant cultural norms, often promotes independent thinking as a marker of success (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015; Stephens et al., 2014). This emphasis on individualism can directly conflict with participants’ cultural values of collective humility, prioritizing consideration for others, and valuing diverse perspectives. Aligned with the current scholarship (Covarrubias et al., 2019; Olson, 2014), some participants embraced the cultural shifts, while others experienced these mismatches as sources of tension, signs of inauthenticity, or indicators of a lack of belonging in the workplace. This dynamic emphasizes the complex balancing act Asian American FGIPs must perform to reconcile personal and cultural values with external professional expectations. These experiences illuminate the need for more inclusive workplace environments that acknowledge and accommodate diverse cultural perspectives, fostering a more expansive sense of authenticity and belonging. Summary 144 The findings illustrate how each of these systems—shaped by a combination of personal, relational, cultural, and societal factors—is deeply interwoven with the lived experiences and workplace challenges of Asian American FGIPs. The innermost circle of the study’s conceptual model, where the individual is placed, reflects the internal influence of multiple intersecting identities on the career development journey of first-generation immigrant professionals, embedding intersectionality as a foundational element of their lived experience. As expected, while Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory is an expansive model, both the extant literature and the study’s findings do not attribute the outermost systems in the exosystem and chronosystem as central influences to the career development of Asian American FGIPs. This may be due to individuals’ limited ability to directly perceive the impact of these broader, more distant contexts on their day-to-day experiences and career journeys (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Although exosystem and chronosystem factors likely play a background role, their influences are less immediately apparent to participants, as they tend to interact more directly with conditions within the microsystem, mesosystem, and macrosystem in their professional environments. As both Crenshaw (1989) and Bronfenbrenner (1979) assert, what an individual perceives about their lived experiences matters more for their personal and professional development than what is objectively true. This suggests that the subjective interpretation that individuals make of their identity, relationships, and experiences influences their growth, resilience, and strategies for navigating workplace challenges. Simply put, the way that FGIPs make meaning of their intersecting identities and surrounding environment profoundly shapes their career advancement journeys. This insight emphasizes the importance of uplifting the stories of FGIPs, uncovering the often-invisible barriers and celebrating their triumphs in pursuit of social and economic 145 mobility. In the end, their perceptions become their reality, highlighting the need for communities and systems that honor their journeys forward on a reimagined pathway to success. Implications for Organizations and Practitioners Building on the limited but growing literature on first-generation professionals, the findings presented in this study strongly support a significant yet often underappreciated and underestimated reality: Even after achieving the monumental milestone of graduation, firstgeneration professionals face profound challenges that remain largely invisible in workplace settings. Although this study focused specifically on Asian American FGIPs, the insights have broader implications for all first-generation professionals, particularly those who hold multiple marginalized identities, such as being people of color, immigrants, English language learners, or individuals from low socioeconomic backgrounds. The study’s findings, detailed in Chapter 4, illuminate both the remarkable resourcefulness and resilience of FGPs and the often overlooked struggles they navigate. However, individual resilience alone cannot address the systemic barriers that FGPs face. To affect meaningful change, organizations must take proactive steps to identify and dismantle these barriers. This study offers three actionable recommendations for organizations to better support first-generation professionals, equipping them to thrive both during and beyond their educational journeys: (1) engage in ongoing organizational reflection, (2) expand and invite diverse definitions of leadership, and (3) build a community of support for first-generation professionals. Recommendation 1: Engage in Ongoing, Data-driven Reflection to Align Organizational Aspirations with Current Culture. To foster a more inclusive workplace that supports the career advancement of FGPs, organizations should adopt a data-driven approach to align their aspirations with their existing 146 culture. Regularly collecting and analyzing data metrics, such as employee demographics across role levels, is a critical first step towards making meaningful progress and supports what Kezar (2001) describes as “organizational self-discovery” (p. 114). Nearly 60% of participants in this study echoed existing literature, emphasizing the importance of thoroughly reviewing key talent data as a starting point for discussions on how effectively organizations are creating conditions for FGPs to thrive. A key challenge for FGPs in the workplace is their invisibility (Burwell & Maldonado, 2022; Covarrubias et al, 2019; Storlie et al., 2015; Terry & Fobia, 2019). Because this identity’s impact on career advancement is often overlooked, organizations must take proactive steps to recognize and amplify its significance in shaping employee experiences and career trajectories. By safely utilizing employee demographic information while protecting individual privacy, organizations can track FGP experiences and outcomes relative to their nonFGP peers, identifying potential inequities (Burwell & Maldonado, 2022). Organizations should include intentional efforts to identify and understand the experiences of first-generation professionals. Using insights from talent data, leaders can establish specific, measurable goals, such as increasing the percentage of first-generation professionals in senior leadership positions, to align with broader aspirations for organizational equity and inclusion. Leaders play a pivotal role in driving this progress. According to McKenzie-Mohr and Schultz (2014), leaders can model an organization’s commitment to diversity and inclusion by consistently emphasizing these goals and holding themselves accountable for advancing them. They can also actively engage employees in co-creating a shared vision for a diverse and inclusive workplace environment. By focusing on adaptability and connecting various initiatives, leaders can generate organizational momentum (Kezar, 2001). Finally, leaders should build trust and transparency through regular communication about 147 progress towards these aspirations, strengthening the collective commitment to meaningful and sustained change (Kezar, 2001). Recommendation 2: Expand and Invite Diverse Definitions of Leadership. The second recommendation is to prioritize investments that celebrate and elevate diverse leadership styles, challenging the restrictive norms often associated with traditional leadership archetypes based on White, middle-class cultural values. Over half of this study’s participants highlighted the importance of fostering a workplace culture where employees feel empowered to lead authentically. Managers and supervisors, in particular, were identified as key enabling conditions of FGP career advancement, with all 17 participants citing them as a pivotal source of support. Thus, organizations should invest in manager training programs that build cultural competence, equipping leaders to better understand and address the diverse needs and perspectives of their teams. The extant literature also emphasizes the critical role of such training, emphasizing that managers and leaders occupy influential positions where they can serve as mentors to FGPs (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Burke, 2018; Terry & Fobia, 2019). By offering practical guidance and emotional support, managers can help FGPs navigate the complexities of white-collar workplace environments and develop clear pathways for career advancement (Terry & Fobia, 2019). According to the Burke-Litwin model of organizational performance and change, organizations should critically examine their systems and structures, such as competency models, performance review frameworks, and promotion criteria, which may inadvertently perpetuate narrow definitions of leadership (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Burke, 2018). Historically, White, middle-class culture is positioned as the normative standard and set as the benchmark that all other racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups are measured and assessed (Okun & Jones, 2001; 148 Tatum, 2000; Yosso, 2005). To disrupt these harmful paradigms, organizations can adopt inclusive frameworks like Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth model, which highlights the unique strengths, skills, knowledge, and networks rooted in communities of color. These attributes often intersect with the identities of first-generation professionals (FGPs), offering untapped potential for leadership and organizational innovation. In addition to rethinking structural models, organizations should also proactively seek feedback from employees about the hidden rules and assumptions embedded in processes such as talent acquisition or promotions (Burwell & Maldonado, 2022). This feedback can illuminate biases and barriers that may disadvantage FGPs and other historically underrepresented groups. By aligning organizational systems with stronger inclusivity and equity practices, workplaces can create environments where a diverse range of leaders can thrive. This alignment not only broadens the definition of leadership but also creates the conditions for individuals from varied backgrounds to contribute to their fullest potential, fostering innovation and strengthening organizational performance (Peretz et al., 2015). Recommendation 3: Build a Community of Support for Employees. The final recommendation is for organizations to invest in structured programs that cultivate a strong community of support for employees. Examples include, but are not limited to, leadership development initiatives, career workshops, and formal mentoring programs. These efforts are critical for intentionally building a diverse talent pipeline, particularly for senior-level roles where representation remains limited for people holding marginalized identities (Ellemers, 2014). According to Burwell and Maldonado (2022), FGPs were notably more likely than their non-FGP peers to emphasize the value of structured programs in advancing their career development opportunities. Fourteen out of 17 (82%) of this study’s participants highlighted the 149 importance of formal organizational offerings as an essential enabling condition to their career advancement. Structured programs address a critical gap for FGPs by providing social capital and practical resources that their non-FGP peers often access through personal networks (Burwell & Maldonado, 2022; Terry & Fobia, 2019). Similarly, researchers advocate for organizations providing workshops that support making the implicit workplace “soft skills” more concrete and actionable, such as how to approach reference requests, how to network at career events, and how to approach a job interview (Terry & Fobia, 2019; Toyokawa & DeWald, 2020). In addition to soft skills, many FGPs report having little guidance or knowledge about navigating critical financial processes to support their professional goals, such as securing a loan, negotiating a salary, and navigating benefits options (Dominguez-Whitehead et al., 2021). By addressing these gaps, organizations can equip FGPs with the tools and knowledge needed to overcome systemic barriers and achieve their full potential. Additionally, creating and supporting affinity groups and formal networks can provide essential spaces for connection, advocacy, and professional development. One of the prevalent human resources strategies applied to in organizational contexts is affinity groups or employee resource groups (ERGs) (Pour-Khorshid, 2018). ERGs are employee-led spaces held within and outside of schools that are open to all staff members holding an underrepresented identity that is often unaddressed in the day-to-day environment (Catalino et al., 2022; Pour-Khorshid, 2018; Schlachter et al., 2023). ERGs can support feelings of belonging, increase employee retention, and serve as an important signal to potential employees of an organization’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (Catalino et al., 2022; Pour-Khorshid, 2018; Schlachter et al., 2023). 150 Not only can ERGs help marginalized communities share their stories as acts of resistance and healing, but they can also foster essential cross-community dialogue, creating opportunities to build solidarity and strengthen collective action. Building on the healing work needed between communities of color, as discussed in Chapter 4, ERGs offer a space where these groups can come together, acknowledge shared struggles, and collaborate to dismantle the systemic forces that divide them. However, the literature suggests the quality and execution of ERGs can be highly variable across organizations and even between ERGs within the same organization (Catalino et al., 2022; Schlachter et al., 2023). As such, the resources and support that school leaders offer ERGs can shape their effectiveness in supporting a positive employee experience (Catalino et al., 2022; Schlachter et al., 2023). Since these groups are often deprioritized, organizations should ensure that employees have the necessary support and resources to actively participate and benefit from these initiatives. Ultimately, structured programs not only support individual career advancement but also contribute to creating a more equitable and inclusive organizational culture. Limitations and Delimitations By the very nature of designing an executable study, a researcher must make a series of choices to explore an inquiry area, leading to the conditions enabling the study as well as defining its boundaries. These boundaries are also known as the study’s limitations and delimitations. Similar to a researcher’s positionality and potential for bias, the purpose of identifying a study’s limitations and delimitations is to acknowledge how they might influence the collection and interpretation of the data, not to try eradicating them all together (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Many of the study’s limitations (i.e., the factors outside of the researcher’s control) stem from the choice to use interviews as the primary data collection method. The 151 qualitative data collected for the study is filtered through the subjective perspectives of the participants themselves (Creswell & Creswell, 2022). Because participants are being asked to reflect introspectively about past events, with some dating back to their upbringing and childhood, the shared accounts more accurately captured how someone felt rather than what factually occurred. Gathering qualitative data through interviews relied heavily on participants’ ability to reflect and communicate their experiences in a way that the researcher can understand and effectively interpret. While this data collection method has the potential to be poignant and compelling, it is important to recognize that not all people are equally introspective and able to articulate their rich inner lives in a way that can be appreciated by others (Creswell & Creswell, 2022). Furthermore, my presence as a researcher may have inherently biased the stories that participants wanted to share or how they shared them because people are powerfully motivated by social dynamics (Creswell & Creswell, 2022). The study’s delimitations (i.e., the factors within the researcher’s control) stem from the intentional design choices to focus the study’s scope and research questions. The choice to use a small, purposeful sample of participants inherently limited the transferability of the study’s findings. Similarly, focusing on the Asian American FGIPs working in the education sector can capture important aspects of the FGIP experience, but it will not be able to adequately capture the nuances and complexities of every population within the FGP umbrella. A single 90-minute interview cannot fully capture or explore the vast emotional landscape of people’s career development journey. Acknowledging the limitations and delimitations, this study added muchneeded scholarship across multiple fields, such as the workplace outcomes and career development journeys of FGC graduates, FGPs, and Asian Americans. By highlighting previously invisible experiences, this study contributed valuable insights for addressing the 152 systemic challenges that hinder career advancement for marginalized communities and, ultimately, support their reimagining of the American Dream and pursuit of economic mobility. Recommendations for Future Research This study aimed to explore the interplay between intersecting identities and surrounding conditions that can shape the career advancement journeys of Asian American FGIPs. Grounded in Kimberlé Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality framework and Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory, the findings reveal the often unseen successes and challenges that Asian American FGIPs encounter as they progress in their careers. This study contributed to the limited but growing body of research on first-generation professionals (FGPs). This study addresses a gap in the literature, which often focuses on first-generation professionals' transitions from college to the workforce but rarely examines the career advancement challenges they face beyond this initial stage. The current literature also lacks depth in exploring the diversity within this group, particularly among immigrant and Asian American communities. While this study focused on the career advancement journeys of Asian American FGIPs, a plethora of potential directions remains open for future researchers. Future research should pursue a comparative analysis across races and ethnicities among first-generation immigrant professionals. While this study focused on East and Southeast Asian Americans, there is significant opportunity to explore other marginalized communities, including those defined by racial, ethnic, or religious identities. This study found that gender influenced participants’ lived experiences, yet further research could deepen understanding of how gender intersects with being a first-generation immigrant professional. Additionally, though this study touched on regional differences in participants’ experiences, future studies should investigate how regional contexts affect career advancement opportunities for Asian American FGIPs. For 153 instance, does living in a diverse community that reflects the Asian American population support these professionals’ career progression? This study was designed with the participants at the center of the conceptual model. Future research could instead focus on organizations, examining how intersecting identities and surrounding conditions shape the experiences of first-generation professionals in their organizational settings. Researchers might investigate how specific practices, policies, and workplace cultures shape the career trajectories of first-generation professionals. They could also explore the effectiveness of mentorship or leadership development programs in advancing firstgeneration talent and supporting diverse talent pipelines. Regardless of the direction of the research, a deeper understanding of first-generation professionals is crucial to supporting this rapidly growing segment of the U.S. workforce. Conclusion First-generation professionals (FGPs) encounter multiple, often invisible barriers to belonging and career advancement as they navigate the complex dynamics of white-collar professional settings. Like how research on FGC students has highlighted the systemic obstacles in education, examining the career development journeys of FGPs reveals how workplace environments can support or hinder their career advancement, and thus, their access to lifechanging social and economic mobility. For first-generation immigrant professionals (FGIPs) in particular, their lived experiences uniquely position them as cultural navigators, adept at bridging diverse environments and adapting to unfamiliar norms. Many FGIPs grow up learning how to balance the values, expectations, and unwritten rules of their home culture with those of the dominant culture. If we view the workplace as its own distinct culture, FGIPs have been practicing the art of cultural navigation their entire lives. 154 When I began brainstorming ideas for my dissertation research, stumbling across the term “first-generation professional” felt like a revelation. It gave me the language to articulate why my transition into the workplace had been marked by so much heartache and so many growing pains. For the first time, I could reframe my experiences within a larger context and begin to make sense of them. As my research progressed and the time came to narrow down my study population, I will never forget my initial gut reaction to focusing on Asian Americans—fear. I was afraid that my research might not be taken seriously or that I would be pigeonholed as “the person who studied Asian Americans.” Deep down, I knew that my study carried a story that could resonate with many. Yet, the fear of being dismissed or misunderstood lingered, creating an internal tension between honoring my own identity and striving for broader recognition. This fear, however, ultimately became a critical turning point in my research journey. It challenged me to confront my own hesitations and reaffirmed the importance of telling stories that are often overlooked. By centering Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals, I realized I was not just studying a niche experience. I was uncovering insights that could speak to the universal challenges of navigating unfamiliar spaces, striving for belonging in systems not designed with us in mind, and balancing our complex, intersecting identities that both honor our authentic selves and push the boundaries of the growth we believe is possible. Somewhere along the way, between hours of interviews and sloppy drafts, I realized that I had been exercising these skills my entire life. I could do this. If we continue to push ourselves to think of the workplace as a “culture,” then we should remember that culture is changing and interactive. Just as much as we are shaped by culture, culture is shaped by our collective values, beliefs, norms, practices, language, history, and rituals. Organizations and individuals have a shared responsibility to actively contribute to 155 shaping this culture in ways that foster inclusivity, innovation, and growth. Organizations have the ability to design intentional practices, policies, and environments that empower all individuals to thrive, no matter their starting point. At the same time, individuals bring their unique perspectives, experiences, and contributions to the workplace. Each person plays a role in shaping the culture through their interactions, decisions, and behaviors. This reciprocal process ensures that culture evolves in response to the changing needs, aspirations, and challenges of its people. Ultimately, when we view culture and ourselves as dynamic instead of static, we open up opportunities for growth, adaptation, and a reimagined pathway to success for all. 156 References Almeida, D. J., Byrne, A. M., Smith, R. M., & Ruiz, S. (2019). How relevant is grit? The importance of social capital in first-generation college students’ academic success. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice, 23(3), 539–599. Au, W. (2022). Asian American racialization, racial capitalism, and the threat of the model minority. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 44(3), 185–209. Brayboy, B. M. K. J. (2005). Toward a Tribal Critical Race Theory in education. The Urban Review, 37(5), 425–446. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press. Budiman, A. & Ruiz, N. G. (2021, April 29). Key facts about Asian Americans, a diverse and growing population. Pew Research Center. Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306 Burke, W. (2018). Organizational Change: Theory and Practice (5th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chapter 10, 222–244. Burwell, M., & Maldonado, B. (2022, January 7). How does your company support “Firstgeneration professionals.” Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/01/how-doesyour-company-support-first-generation-professionals 157 Carbado, D., Crenshaw, K. W., Mays, V. M., & Tomlinson, B. (2013). Intersectionality: Mapping the movements of a theory. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 303–312. https://doi.org/10.10170S1742058X13000349 Catalino, N., Gardner, N., Goldstein, D., & Wong, J. (2022, December). Effective employee resource groups are key to inclusion at work. Here's how to get them right. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizationalperformance/our-insights/effective-employee-resource-groups-are-key-to-inclusion-at-workheres-how-to-get-them-right Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 785–810. http://www.jstor.com/stable/10.1086/669608 Chui, M., Ellingrud, K., Rambachan, I., & Wong, J. (2022). Asian American workers: Diverse outcomes and hidden challenges. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/asian-americanworkers-diverse-outcomes-and-hidden-challenges Covarrubias, R., & Fryberg, S. A. (2015). Movin' on up (to college): First-generation college students' experiences with family achievement guilt. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(3), 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037844 Covarrubias, R., Valle, I., Laiduc, G., & Azmitia, M. (2019). “You never become fully independent”: Family roles and independence in first-generation college students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 34(4), 381–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558418788402 158 Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 164(1), 139–167. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=uclf Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1229039?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2022). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications. Davidai, S., & Wienk, M. N. A. (2021). The psychology of lay beliefs about economic mobility. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(8). https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12625 Demetriou, C., Meece, J., Eaker-Rich, D., & Powell, C. (2017). The activities, roles, and relationships of successful first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 58(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0001 DeOrtentiis, P. S., Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Wanberg, C. R. (2022). Different starting lines, different finish times: The role of social class in the job search process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000915 Dominguez-Whitehead, Y., Phommasa, M., & Caudillo, A. (2021). Unmasking first-generation college students and professionals. Journal of First-Generation Student Success, 1(2), 145– 155. https://doi.org/10.1080/26906015.2021.1940390 159 Ellemers, N. (2014). Women at work: How organizational features impact career development. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214549327 Garriott, P. O. (2020). A critical cultural wealth model of first-generation and economically marginalized college students’ academic and career development. Journal of Career Development, 47(1), 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845319826266 Harlow, A. J., & Bowman, S. L. (2016). Examining the career decision self-efficacy and career maturity of community college and first-generation students. Journal of Career Development, 43(6), 512–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845316633780 Hirschi, A. (2018). The fourth industrial revolution: Issues and implications for career research and practice. The Career Development Quarterly, 66(3), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12142 Hirudayaraj, M., & McLean, G. N. (2018). First-generation college graduates: A phenomenological exploration of their transition experiences into the corporate sector. European Journal of Training and Development, 42(1–2), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejtd-06-2017-0055 Hsieh, B., & Kim, J. (2020). Challenging the invisibility of Asian Americans in education. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 42(2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2020.1760643 Huang, T. J. (2020). Negotiating the workplace: Second-generation Asian American professionals’ early experiences. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47(11), 2477– 2496. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1778455 160 Jeong, Y., & Leblebici, H. (2019). How professionalization and organizational diversity shape contemporary careers: Developing a typology and process model. human relations, 72(2), 298–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718761552 Kezar, A. (2001). Theories and models of organizational change. Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHEERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 25–58. Lee, S. J. (1994). Behind the Model-Minority Stereotype: Voices of High- and Low-Achieving Asian American Students. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 25(4), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1994.25.4.04x0530j Lee, S.J., Wong, N.A., & Alvarez, A.N. (2008). The model minority and the perpetual foreigner: Stereotypes of Asian Americans. Asian American Psychology: Current Perspectives (1st ed.) (pp. 69–84). Psychology Press. https://doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.4324/9780203809839 Litano, M. L., & Major, D. A. (2016). Facilitating a whole-life approach to career development. Journal of Career Development, 43(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845315569303 McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Schultz, P. (2014). Choosing effective behavior change tools. Social Marketing Quarterly, 20(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500413519257 Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass. 161 Morgan, K. P. (2018). Describing the emperor's new clothes: Three myths of educational (in)equity. In the gender question in education (pp. 105–122). Routledge. Nagy, N., Froidevaux, A., & Hirschi, A. (2019). Lifespan perspectives on careers and career development. Work Across the Lifespan (pp. 235–259). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812756-8.00010-4 O’Keefe, P. A., Horberg, E. J., Chen, P., & Savani, K. (2021). Should you pursue your passion as a career? Cultural differences in the emphasis on passion in career decisions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(9), 1475–1495. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2552 Okun, T., & Jones, K. (2001). White supremacy culture. Dismantling Racism: A Workbook for Social Change Groups. https://www.dismantlingracism.org/uploads/4/3/5/7/43579015/white_sup_culture.pdf Olson, J. S. (2014). Opportunities, obstacles, and options. Journal of Career Development, 41(3), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845313486352 Peretz, H., Levi, A., & Fried, Y. (2015). Organizational diversity programs across cultures: Effects on absenteeism, turnover, performance and innovation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(6). https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.991344 Pew Research Center. (2013, February 7). Second-generation Americans: A portrait of the adult children of immigrants. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/socialtrends/2013/02/07/second-generation-americans/ 162 Pour-Khorshid, F. (2018). Cultivating sacred spaces: A racial affinity group approach to support critical educators of color. Teaching Education, 29(4), 318–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1512092 Rao, A. H., & Tobias Neely, M. (2019). What’s love got to do with it? Passion and inequality in white‐collar work. Sociology Compass, 13(12), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12744 Rutten, L., & Badiali, B. (2020). Why they teach: Professional development school teacher candidates’ initiating motivations to become teachers. School-University Partnerships, 13(1), 12–21. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/why-theyteach-professional-development-school/docview/2478113993/se-2 Saunders, M. N. (2019). Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development. In research methods for business students, 5th edition. Pearson Education India. Schlachter, S., Rolf, S., & Welbourne, T. M. (2023). Dynamics of employee resource groups: Leader experiences driving mutual benefits for employees and employers. Compensation & Benefits Review, 56(3), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/08863687231192179 Sequeira, S., Nunn, N., & Qian, N. (2020). Immigrants and the making of America. The Review of Economic Studies, 87(1), 382–419. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdz003 Sigelman, M., Fuller, J., Dawson, N., & Levanon, G. (2022). The American opportunity index. Burning Glass Institute. https://www.americanopportunityindex.org/AOI_2022_Final_Report.pdf 163 Smith, K. N. (2023). “Our branches are the vines that must bear fruit”: The role of parents in first-generation students' career development. Journal of Postsecondary Student Success, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.33009/fsop_jpss132580 Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Phillips, L. T. (2014). Social class culture cycles: How three gateway contexts shape selves and fuel inequality. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 611–634. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115143 Storlie, C. A., Mostade, S. J., & Duenyas, D. (2016). Cultural trailblazers: Exploring the career development of Latina first-generation college students. The Career Development Quarterly, 64(4), 304–317. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12067 Taie, S., Lewis, L., & Spiegelman, M. (2022). Characteristics of 2020–21 public and private K– 12 school principals in the United States. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2022/2022112.pdf Tang, Y. H. (2023). Tokenism and Asian-American education industry. SHS Web of Conferences, 162, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202316201037 Tate, K. A., Caperton, W., Kaiser, D., Pruitt, N. T., White, H., & Hall, E. (2015). An exploration of first-generation college students’ career development beliefs and experiences. Journal of Career Development, 42(4), 294–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845314565025 Tatum, B. D. (2000). The complexity of identity: 'Who am I?' In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 9–14). Routledge. 164 Terry, R. L., & Fobia, A. C. (2019). Qualitative research on barriers to workplace inclusion for first generation professionals. U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2019/adrm/rsm2019- 03.pdf Tian, Z., & Ruiz, N.G. (2024, March 24). Key facts about Asian Americans living in poverty. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/27/key-factsabout-asian-americans-living-in-poverty/ Torpey-Saboe, N., Leigh, E.W., & Clayton, D. (2022). The power of work-based learning. Strada Education Network. https://cci.stradaeducation.org/pv-release-march-16-2022/ Toyokawa, T., & Dewald, C. (2020). Perceived career barriers and career decidedness of first‐ generation college students. The Career Development Quarterly, 68(4), 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12240 Tran, V. C., Lee, J., & Huang, T. J. (2019). Revisiting the Asian second-generation advantage. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 42(13), 2248–2269. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2019.1579920 Tuck, E., & Gaztambide-Fernández, R. A. (2013). Curriculum, replacement, and settler futurity. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 29(1), 72–89. Vande Griek, O.H., Clauson, M. G., & Eby, L. T. (2020). Organizational career growth and proactivity: A typology for individual career development. Journal of Career Development, 47(3), 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845318771216 165 Wolak, J., & Peterson, D. A. M. (2020). The dynamic American dream. American Journal of Political Science, 64(4), 968–981. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12522 World Economic Forum. (2020). The global social mobility report 2020: Equality, opportunity, and a new economic imperative. World Economic Forum. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global_Social_Mobility_Report.pdf Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006 Zacher, H., & Froidevaux, A. (2021). Life stage, lifespan, and life course perspectives on vocational behavior and development: A theoretical framework, review, and research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 126(2021), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103476 Zhou, M., & Gonzales, R. G. (2019). Divergent destinies: Children of immigrants growing up in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 45(1), 383–399. https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1146/annurev-soc-073018-022424 166 Appendix A: Interview Protocol Research Questions: 1. How do the intersecting identities of Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals shape their career development journeys? 2. When reflecting on their intersecting identities, what surrounding conditions do Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals attribute to supporting or hindering their career advancement? 3. What strategies and resources do Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals use to navigate the challenges to career advancement? Respondent Type: The ideal participant profile looks like: • Identifies as an immigrant or a child of immigrants • Identifies as an Asian American • Identifies as a first-generation college graduate • Grew up with parents or caretakers from working class occupations and made the transition to a white-collar occupation as the first in their family • Age falls within the range 40–60 • Currently works K–12 Education, either through the school system or in an adjacent organization focused on supporting K–12 students Introduction to the Interview: Hi <NAME>, thanks for joining me today! My name is Helen Park Truong. I use she/her pronouns, and I call Atlanta, GA home, where I live with my partner and three children. As I mentioned in our email exchanges, I am also a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California. I’ll be putting on my researcher hat for today’s conversation. The purpose of my study is to learn more about the career development journey of first-generation professionals who identify as both an immigrant or child of immigrants and Asian American. Our time today is going to explore how your background, identity, and the surrounding conditions have shaped your career development journey. I want to take a few minutes at the top of our time together to set the stage. As a seasoned professional, you have likely experienced many interviews in the context of a hiring process. This interview is going to be unique in some key ways. First, your perspectives and involvement in this study will remain completely confidential. Second, there are no right or wrong answers in this interview. I’m looking to understand your experiences, not evaluate them. Third, unlike a hiring process, conciseness is not the goal. In qualitative research, we value rich descriptions and storytelling. With that framing in mind, please share what you feel comfortable sharing. In terms of pacing, there may also be some questions where I feel like I’ve gotten enough information, so I’ll move us along. Lastly, you will occasionally hear me typing or looking away 167 because I want to capture notes about our conversation today. An important part of conducting an ethical study is to ensure that participants are engaged in informed consent. You always have the right to decide to skip a question or withdraw from the process altogether. Before we get started, I want to ask for your consent to record this interview. The purpose of the recording is to make sure that I’m capturing your perspectives accurately and can revisit them if I need to. No one else will be seeing or listening to them. Do I have your permission to record? [If no] No problem! I will type my notes during our conversation. Before we get started, do you have any questions or concerns about our interview? Do I have your permission to use your perspectives in my research? Let’s get started. [If yes] Great, I will hit record now. Okay, I am recording now. Before we get started, do you have any questions or concerns about our interview? Do I have your permission to use your perspectives in my research? Let’s get started. Section 1: Background & Upbringing I want to open by learning more about your background and upbringing. Tell me the story of how your family came to the United States. What prompted their decision to immigrate? Potential Probes: • What opportunities or aspirations was your family hoping to pursue by immigrating to the United States? • What did you see your parents or caretakers do for work? • How did these experiences as an immigrant or child of immigrants shape your career choices and aspirations? • What were some of the lessons or values you learned from your upbringing that you still carry with you today as a professional? RQ1. How do the intersecting identities of Asian American firstgeneration immigrant professionals shape their career development journeys? Concepts addressed: Intersectionality, career development journey Section 2: Intersecting Identities I’m going to move us into our next interview section, where we’ll be discussing the role that identity has played in your career development journey. People hold a myriad of complex social identities. Some examples of social identities include things like race, gender, social class, etc. Before we dive in, do you have any questions about what I mean by social identities? • How do you define “career advancement” for yourself? RQ1. How do the intersecting identities of Asian American firstgeneration immigrant professionals shape their career development journeys? Concepts addressed: Intersectionality, career 168 • When you think about your career journey, what identities have most shaped that journey? • When you think specifically about your career advancement opportunities, how have your identities helped or hindered that journey? Potential Probes: • What does “career advancement” mean to you? • Are there any identities that feel more salient than others? How so? • That’s interesting. Can you give me an example? advancement, career barriers Section 3: Career Peaks Let’s move on to our next two sections of the interview. We’ll be discussing your career peaks and valleys and focusing on one specific example of each. The high points, or peaks, represent the meaningful breakthrough moments in advancing your careers. I want you to focus on one of the peaks. Describe what this peak is to me. What makes it a peak? What made this moment a breakthrough for your career advancement? I’m curious to learn more about the role that surrounding conditions might have played in this peak. Surrounding conditions are the influences outside of you that have shaped your career advancement story. Surrounding conditions can be a person, a network, cultural norms, an organizational policy/practice, a resource, or an opportunity. What, if any, surrounding conditions do you attribute to supporting your career advancement here? Potential Probes: • What emotions came up for you during this peak? • In what ways, if any, did you perceive the identities we previously discussed play out in this peak? • Reflecting on this career peak, what strategies or resources did you use to navigate through it? RQ1. How do the intersecting identities of Asian American firstgeneration immigrant professionals shape their career development journeys? RQ2. When reflecting on their intersecting identities, what surrounding conditions do Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals attribute to supporting or hindering their career advancement? Concepts addressed: career advancement, surrounding conditions, intersectionality Section 4: Career Valleys 169 Now, let’s shift our attention to the one of the career valleys you visualized earlier. The low points, or valleys, represent the times when you faced a significant roadblock to advancing your career. Describe what this valley is to me. What makes it a valley? What made this experience challenging? I’m curious to learn more about the role that surrounding conditions might have played in this valley. What, if any, surrounding conditions do you attribute to hindering your career advancement here? Potential Probes: • What emotions came up for you during this valley? • In what ways, if any, did you perceive the identities we previously discussed play out in this valley? • Reflecting on this career valley, what strategies or resources did you use to navigate through it? RQ1. How do the intersecting identities of Asian American firstgeneration immigrant professionals shape their career development journeys? RQ2. When reflecting on their intersecting identities, what surrounding conditions do Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals attribute to supporting or hindering their career advancement? Concepts addressed: career advancement, surrounding conditions, intersectionality, career barriers Section 5: Recommendations Thank you so much for your thoughtful responses thus far. We have one last section before we close out. Let’s focus our attention back on your career valley example. Reflecting back on these experiences, what were the strategies or resources that individuals could leverage to support their career advancement? What could a workplace do to better support professionals like you towards career advancement? Potential Probes: • What, if any, surrounding conditions do you think are important to supporting career advancement? • If money were no issue, what resources would be most impactful in supporting career advancement for firstgeneration professionals like yourself? RQ3. What strategies and resources do Asian American firstgeneration immigrant professionals use to navigate the challenges to career advancement? Concepts addressed: career advancement, surrounding conditions, intersectionality 170 Interview Conclusion Is there anything else you’d like to share that would help me to better understand your experiences? We have a few minutes remaining. Are there any questions I can answer for you? Thank you so much for sharing the gift of your stories and experiences today. This has been a rich and meaningful experience for me, both as a researcher and as a young Asian American and first-generation immigrant professional myself. I hope that this has been a meaningful experience for you as well! [STOP RECORDING] 171 Appendix B: Screening Questionnaire Email SUBJECT LINE: Introduction + Invitation to Participate in Screening Questionnaire Hello XXX, My name is Helen Park Truong (she/her/hers) , and I am currently pursuing a Doctor of Education in Organizational Change and Leadership at the University of Southern California. I’m reaching out to you regarding an upcoming qualitative research study for my dissertation. I came across your profile from <INFORMATION ABOUT CONNECTION/REFERRAL>. I believe that your experiences and insights could greatly contribute to the depth and richness of my research. Before we proceed with the formal interview recruitment process, I would like to invite you to participate in a brief screening questionnaire. This tool helps me ensure that the participants selected for the study hold the specific characteristics and perspectives that align with my research purpose. You may be eligible to participate in this study if you meet the following criteria: • Identifies as an immigrant or a child of immigrants • Identifies as an Asian American • Identifies as a first-generation college graduate • Grew up with parents or caretakers from working class occupations and made the transition to a white-collar occupation as the first in their family • Age falls within the range 40-60 • Currently works K–12 Education, either through the school system or in an adjacent organization focused on supporting K–12 students There is no cost to you for taking part in this study. The screening questionnaire will cover some high-level demographic questions and gather information about your background. The survey should take approximately 10–15 minutes to complete. Your participation in this questionnaire is completely voluntary, and all information provided will be kept strictly confidential. Your responses will only be used to determine your eligibility for participation in the main study and for no other reasons. I will follow-up with you after completion and share any relevant next steps. To access the screening questionnaire, please click on the following link: If you are invited to participate in the main study, you will be asked to do the following activities: 1. Participate in a 1:1 online interview via Zoom for 60-90 minutes 2. Review a high-level summary of key themes from the interview for 10-15 minutes Upon completion of the screening questionnaire, participants will be given the option to provide a valid email address to enter a drawing for one $50 Amazon gift card. Winners will be selected 172 at random through a drawing conducted by the principal investigator within 1 week of the questionnaire close date. All participants who have completed the screening questionnaire are eligible for the raffle, regardless of whether they are invited for the interview. If you win a gift card, I will notify you via your provided email address. Participants’ personally identifiable information will not be published or presented publicly. Participants who do not qualify for the interview will have their screening questionnaire data deleted for privacy and protection. You can learn more about my study through the attached Information Sheet. If you have any questions or want any additional information about the study or the screening questionnaire, please do not hesitate to reach out to me at XXXXX@usc.edu or my phone number at XXXXXX-XXXX. Thank you so much for considering this opportunity, and I look forward to receiving your response. All the best, Helen Park Truong Doctoral candidate at Rossier School of Education University of Southern California 173 Appendix C: Screening Questionnaire Thank you for your interest in participating in my dissertation study! The purpose of this screening questionnaire is to ensure that the participants selected for the study hold the specific characteristics and perspectives that align with the study’s research purpose. All information shared will be kept strictly confidential and only used to inform participant selection for the study. If you have any questions about this questionnaire, please email me at hptruong@usc.edu. First and Last Name Free response Best Email Address to Reach You Free response Do you identify as an immigrant or child of immigrants? Select one: YES / NO Do you identify as a first-generation college graduate? Helper text: A first-generation college student is someone whose parents or guardians have not completed a bachelor's degree or equivalent. Select one: YES / NO Did your parents or caretakers hold “blue collar,” working class jobs? Helper text: "Blue-collar" or "working class" roles typically involve manual labor and are often associated with industries such as manufacturing, construction, transportation, maintenance, and skilled trades. These roles may require physical work and specialized skills, but they often do not require a college degree. Select one: YES / NO Are you the first in your family to hold a “whitecollar,” professional job? Helper text: "White-collar" or "professional" jobs typically involve work that is performed in an office or professional setting and often require a higher level of education, specialized knowledge, and skills. Select one: YES / NO Race Select one/multiple: Asian or Asian American Black or African American Hispanic or Latine Middle Eastern or North African Multi-Racial (type response) Native American, American Indian, Indigenous Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 174 White or Caucasian I prefer to self-identify (type response) Ethnicity/Nationality Free response Gender Select one: Woman Man Transgender Non-binary/non-conforming I prefer to self-identify (type response) I prefer not to say Personal pronouns Helper text: Pronouns are the part of speech used to refer to someone in the third person (examples: she/her, he/him, they/them, ze/hir). Asking for your personal pronouns helps me ensure that I am not making any assumptions in how you identify. I want to know how to respectfully refer to you. This question is completely optional. Free response Where are you currently based? (City, State) Free response What is your current age? Free response What is your current occupation? (Role, Organization) Free response What sector do you work in? Helper text: Education (school, district, or nonprofit), Higher education (colleges, universities), Government, Technology, Healthcare Free response 175 Appendix D: Formal Participant Invitation Email SUBJECT LINE: Invitation to Participate in Dissertation Study Hello XXX, I hope that this email finds you well! Thank you so much for completing the screening questionnaire. I would like to invite you formally to participate in my dissertation research study. The purpose of my qualitative study is to understand the career development journey of firstgeneration professionals who identify as both immigrants or children of immigrants and Asian American. A first-generation professional overlaps significantly with first-generation college students in that they are the first in their families to enter the “white-collar” or “professional” working world. Your unique perspective and experiences could greatly contribute to the insights I hope to gather for my research. I am particularly interested in understanding the challenges, successes, and strategies used by individuals like yourself in navigating their careers in the education sector. I hope that my research illuminates the diverse and often invisible experiences within the Asian American community and provides valuable insights for supporting and empowering all firstgeneration professionals in their career journeys. Confirming Interest in Participation: Information Sheet Before proceeding with the study, I kindly ask for you to confirm your interest in participating by reviewing the attached Information Sheet. This form outlines the details of the study, your rights as a participant, and how your confidentiality will be protected throughout the research process. Scheduling a 90-minute Interview Block Additionally, I would like to invite you to schedule a convenient time for a one-on-one interview with me. This interview will take between 60 to 90 minutes of your time and will provide an opportunity for you to share your background and career experience in depth. Please use the following scheduling link to select a time slot that works best for you: [INSERT SCHEDULING LINK] If you run into any scheduling challenges or have any questions about the study or participation process, please do not hesitate to reach out to me via email at XXXXX@usc.edu or my phone number at XXX-XXX-XXXX. Thank you for considering participation in this study. Your contribution is invaluable, and I look forward to the opportunity to learn from your experiences.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract First-generation professionals (FGPs) in America face unique challenges and opportunities as they navigate career advancement, balancing intersecting identities, conflicting cultural expectations, and systemic barriers. Within this population, Asian American first-generation immigrant professionals (FGIPs) hold a distinct perspective shaped by their intersecting marginalized identities and the harmful Model Minority Myth, which restricts their career growth, especially at senior levels. As part of the fastest-growing workforce, understanding the factors that support or hinder their progress is vital to assessing economic mobility today and reimagining the future potential of the American workforce. This study explores how 17 Asian American FGIPs in the K–12 education sector navigate the complexities of career development. Using a qualitative approach, the thematic analysis of their narratives highlights the interplay between identity, culture, and career development strategies in organizational settings. Findings reveal that FGIPs draw strength from their intersecting identities and transition from reliance on hard work ethic and cultural deference towards strategic self-advocacy and networking. Mentorship and community support emerged as pivotal factors in overcoming barriers, fostering growth, and achieving career success. These insights illuminate the need for organizations to engage in ongoing reflection, embrace diverse definitions of leadership, and cultivate supportive environments to empower first-generation professionals. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of how identity and organizational practices shape career trajectories, offering pathways for fostering equity and inclusion in the workplace.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

First-generation professionals: career transition and success

PDF

Examining the underemployment of persons with disabilities in the workplace

PDF

Amplifying the counter-narratives of first-generation college graduates of color as they navigate the journey toward decent work

PDF

Beyond persistence and graduation rates: examining the career exploration processes of first-generation college students

PDF

Standards of professionalism as a racial construct

PDF

Understanding queer leadership in corporate America

PDF

Black leaders: the unicorns of the biopharmaceutical industry

PDF

Generation Y employee retention in a diverse generational mix

PDF

Navigating the evolving leadership landscape: chief executive officer adaptation in a postpandemic era

PDF

Belonging in America: Black Muslim refugee women’s’ trials and triumphs in the workplace

PDF

Changing the game: women’s journey through the sports leadership labyrinth

PDF

Stories of persistence: illuminating the experiences of California Latina K–12 leaders: a retention and career development model

PDF

Using cultural capital skills as a woman of color in student affairs: what does it take to get ahead?

PDF

The resilience of immigrant Asian American women professional engineers in the construction industry

PDF

Core career competencies of entrepreneurial classical musicians: evaluating necessary skills in pre-professional training

PDF

Fostering awareness and action: empowering marginalized colleagues to recognize and address systemic silencing in workplace decision-making processes: a qualitative action research study

PDF

Beyond commitments: a qualitative examination of the persistent disparities faced by Black women in executive leadership roles post the 2020 crisis and beyond

PDF

The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion

PDF

Environmental influences on the diversity of professional sports executive leadership

PDF

Burnout experienced by the dual identity of being Black and a public health department professional

Asset Metadata

Creator Truong, Helen Park (author)

Core Title Reimagining the pathway to career success: navigating Identity and the white-collar workplace as first-generation immigrant professionals

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2025-05

Publication Date 02/19/2025

Defense Date 01/14/2025

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Asian American professionals,career advancement,first-generation professionals,immigrant professional,intersectionality,mentorship,model minority myth,OAI-PMH Harvest,workforce equity

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Advisor Chung, Ruth (committee chair), Hinga, Briana (committee member), Muraszewski, Alison (committee member)

Creator Email hptruong@usc.edu,htruong716@gmail.com

Unique identifier UC11399HPNH

Identifier etd-TruongHele-13826.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-TruongHele-13826

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Truong, Helen Park

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20250227-usctheses-batch-1242 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu